Another Round Of Stimulus Anyone?

Although most economists proclaim the recession to be at an end, the expected surge in foreclosure and unemployment rates could precipitate the recurrence of a recession which has some economists calling for more government stimulus. The argument is that another round of effective stimulus could prevent the slowest recovery in modern memory. See the following from Economist's View.

As many of us have been saying for some time now, more stimulus would speed the recovery -- the jobs outlook is particularly worrisome -- but unfortunately, it doesn't appear that more stimulus is politically feasible:

The Case for More Stimulus, Editorial, NY Times: The consensus among economists is that the recession is over, and, technically, the herd is probably right. ... Immense federal stimulus has jolted the economy.

But... The economy is going to need more government support, or it is bound to be very weak for a very long time — and vulnerable to a relapse into recession. Unemployment is expected to worsen well into next year, exceeding 10 percent. Foreclosures are expected to rise, which will push home values down further. Hundreds of small and midsize banks are likely to fail in coming years. State and local governments face budget shortfalls in 2010 that are as bad or worse than this year’s.

Yet Washington is not providing a coherent plan for effective stimulus. The Senate has been hamstrung for nearly a month over the most basic relief-and-recovery boost: an extension of unemployment benefits. ... Lawmakers in both parties fret that large budget deficits preclude more stimulus, lest the burden of debt outweigh the benefit of deficit spending. ... Deficits are a serious issue, but the immediate need for stimulus trumps the longer-term need for deficit reduction. A self-reinforcing stretch of economic weakness would be far costlier than additional stimulus.

The Senate could take a step in the right direction by extending unemployment benefits without further delay. ... Next, Congress and the administration should agree on ways to ease the dire financial condition of the states. Most important is continued aid for state Medicaid programs... As long as the states are suffering, any economic recovery efforts by the federal government are undermined. ...

Without another round of effective stimulus, the worst recession in modern memory will likely become — at best — the weakest recovery in modern memory. Another boost to federal spending that is targeted and timely should not be too much for politicians to deliver.

Recall this recent graph from the San Francisco Fed:



Output is not expected to return to potential until well into 2012.

Now recall the long delay between the end of the last two recessions and the peak in the unemployment rate (or just about any other labor market indicator):



And the recovery for the labor market could be even slower this time.

To be fully effective, plans for additional stimulus should have been in place long ago. However, given how long the recovery is expected to take, it's not too late to do more if we get started right away. But the political climate makes it highly unlikely that labor markets and the economy will get the help that they need.

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Is France's Stimulus Package More Effective Than The US Stimulus?

France's approach to stimulus spending contrasts pretty sharply with the US approach. Instead of spending on long-term infrastructure projects designed to stimulate the economy in both the short and long-term, France is focusing on getting funds out quickly to citizens with public works projects like restoring famous landmarks. The French minister in charge of the stimulus says their strategy is better, but is it? Economist Mark Thoma examines this question in the following post.

The "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" say that when it comes to stimulus programs, “The country that is behind is the U.S., not France.”:

France, Unlike U.S., Is Deep Into Stimulus Projects, by Nelson D. Schwartz, NY Times: French workers normally take off much of the summer, but this month,... throngs of tourists will be jostling alongside stonemasons, restoration experts and other artisans paid by the French government’s $37 billion economic stimulus program.

Their job? Maintain in pristine condition the 800-year-old palace of more than 1,500 rooms where Napoleon bid adieu before being exiled to Elba and where Marie Antoinette enjoyed a gilded boudoir.

Besides Fontainebleau, about 50 French chateaus are to receive a facelift, including the palace of Versailles. Also receiving funds are some 75 cathedrals like Notre Dame in Paris. A museum devoted to Lalique glass is being created in Strasbourg, while Marseilles is to be the home of a new 10 million euro center for Mediterranean culture.

All told, Paris has set aside 100 million euros in stimulus funds earmarked for what the French like to call their cultural patrimony. It is a French twist on how to overcome the global downturn, spending borrowed money avidly to beautify the nation even as it also races ahead of the United States in more classic Keynesian ways: fixing potholes, upgrading railroads and pursuing other “shovel ready” projects.

“America is six months behind; it has wasted a lot of time,” said Patrick Devedjian, the minister in charge of the French relance, or stimulus. By the time Washington gets around to doling out most of its money, Mr. Devedjian sniffed, “the crisis could be over.” ...

As it turns out, France’s more centralized, state-directed economy ... is proving remarkably effective at deploying funds quickly and efficiently in bad times. ...

It is easier to find money for castles and cathedrals, of course, in a country that believes “art is equal to other investments, not secondary,” as Mr. Devedjian puts it. But the largess is driven as well by President Sarkozy’s support for more spending to combat the recession, even if it means borrowing more and running up big deficits.

That contrasts sharply with the commitment by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to hold down stimulus spending and move as quickly as possible to curb her government’s budget deficit.

So what about the criticism that Europe is not being as aggressive as the United States in combating the global slowdown, with only tepid stimulus packages? That’s not the way the French see it.

“You lost time with changing a president and no decisions were made in the last three months of 2008,” Mr. Devedjian jibed. “Nothing happened in January 2009, and in February, there was just a speech.”

“The country that is behind is the U.S.,” he said, “not France.”

While the scale, $37 billion versus close to $800 billion, is a bit different and probably ought to be accounted for in the comparison, there does seem to be a difference not just in the speed of deployment, but also in the focus of the policy. It will be interesting to see how that difference, which seems to place somewhat more emphasis on boosting employment and aggregate demand immediately than on long-run growth in France as compared to the U.S., translates into a differential response to the fiscal policy boosts in the two countries.

This post was republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

When Is The Obama Stimulus Going To Start Creating Jobs?

With the unemployment rate reaching the highest level in 26 years, the obvious question is: when is the Obama stimulus going to start creating some jobs? Shouldn't the funds be used to put people to work immediately rather than investing in long-term infrastructure projects that could take months to start? The following post from Economist's View discusses this topic further.

The stimulus package had two components, new spending and tax cuts. Everybody knew that the spending component would take time to put into place, six months or more for a lot of the infrastructure projects, and that meant that we needed something to increase demand and provide a bridge until the new spending comes online.

Enter the tax cuts that the GOP insisted upon, tax cuts that were a larger part of the stimulus package than I thought justified. These cuts were to come online immediately and stimulate demand until the spending could begin taking up some of the slack later in the year. I would have preferred targeted, non-infrastructure spending that could have been put in place almost as fast as the tax cuts (particularly those that simply require making existing programs more generous), but that type of spending was considered wasteful because it didn't add to our long-run capacity for growth and hence had little chance of being part of the stimulus package.

The problem was partly bad luck. A crisis hit and we had the bad luck of having an administration that opposed active intervention and though there was a bit of a stimulus attempt through a one time tax rebate, a strategy theory predicts won't do much to help, the real action in terms of stimulating the economy was left to the new administration. So nothing was done, nothing could have been done until the new administration took over, and given the insistence that any new spending be on infrastructure projects with clear benefits, tax cuts were the main hope for an immediate effect.

So if the policy has failed at this point, it is not the spending component since, fully consistent with predictions when it was enacted, it was going to be months before it could be of any help. What failed is the GOP's insistence that tax cuts be used to provide an immediate boost to the economy. Increasing food stamps, unemployment compensation, payments to help states with declining revenues and increasing demands for social services, payments to help unemployed workers maintain health care, digging (needed) holes, there were many, many other ways to provide more immediate relief and stimulate the economy at the same time, but no, it had to be tax cuts or nothing.

Finally, I want to note that what we maximize matters. For example, we can maximize GDP growth over the next ten or twenty years, or we can maximize employment over the next few months. Which we choose to maximize has a big effect on the policies we put in place. If we use the stimulus money to maximize GDP and growth - which is essentially what we did - that will have a much slower effect on employment than if we maximize employment directly. The efficiency argument always leads you to maximize output, and efficiency prevailed in the structure of the current package, but I think an argument can also be made that maximizing employment provides social benefits that are just as large, or larger.

Just noticed this, which makes a surprisingly similar point:

A Message to President Obama: Stop Priming the Pump, Hire the Unemployed, by Pavlina R. Tcherneva: Many have called President Obama’s stimulus plan a return to Keynesian policy. Some of us who like reading Keynes professionally or for leisure have already been scratching our heads. I have wondered in particular whether the plan isn’t set up to work in a manner completely backwards from what Keynes himself had in mind when he advocated economic stabilization by government.

There are two things to remember about Keynes’s fiscal policy proposals: 1) government spending was always linked to the goal of full employment... and 2) to achieve macro-stability and full employment, the government had to employ the unemployed directly into public works.

By contrast, most modern economists believe that 1) there is some natural level of unemployment that includes the structurally unemployed, which governments cannot generally tackle, and that 2) public employment is an inefficient use of public resources.

So, when the government is called to action, the economic profession has replaced Keynes’s “fiscal policy via public works” with a “leaky bucket pump-priming mechanism.”

How is the latter policy supposed to work? Instead of employing the unemployed directly, the idea is to generate large enough government expenditures to produce a level of economic growth that would, in turn, gradually reduce unemployment. For example, the government could spend money on various private sector contracts, stimulate different private industries, offer investment subsidies and tax cuts, and increase unemployment insurance payments, in hope that it will boost GDP sufficiently to reduce unemployment to desired levels. This is essentially the underlying logic behind President Obama’s stimulus package. But it is also a bit of a gamble.

Not all of these injections will be effective because the fiscal stimulus enters the economy through “a leaky bucket”. Some of the money will be lost in transit (because of administrative costs, for example) and much of it will have no direct job creation effects (e.g. the tax cut component of the recovery act). Nevertheless, despite this leaky bucket, the theory goes, sooner or later, large enough government expenditures will produce the kind of growth that would reduce unemployment. ...

All of this is ... why Keynes never had any “leaky bucket” or “pump priming” idea in mind. For him “the real problem fundamental yet essentially simple…[is] to provide employment for everyone” (Keynes 1980, 267) and the most bang for the buck from fiscal policy would be achieved via direct job creation. This he called “on the spot” employment via public works.

As I have argued elsewhere, it is useful to think of Keynesian fiscal policy, not as aggregate demand management, but as labor demand management. ...

Commentators often call this a policy of “make work” but Keynes didn’t advocate digging holes, burying jars with money and digging them out, or any other similarly worthless projects. The key was to marry the two goals: to employ the unemployed directly and to make sure that they do useful things. Once they are put to work on a particular project, Keynes argued, “there can be only one object in the economy, namely to substitute some other, better, and wiser piece of expenditure for it” (Keynes 1982, 146). We might as well ask a very basic question: is there really a shortage of useful things to do?

If we insist on calling ourselves Keynesians again, and more importantly, if President Obama’s plan for economic stabilization should generate rapid reduction in unemployment, it would help to set fiscal policy straight. Instead of relying on “leaky fiscal buckets” we could return to “labor demand management” a la Keynes that provides immediate employment opportunities to the unemployed via bold and creative public works projects, which generate useful output and services for all.

This post was republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Phoenix Real Estate Market Showing Signs Of Life

The Phoenix real estate market was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped, and it looks like it might be one of the first to rebound. Buyers are beginning to show heightened interested in the market, with one of the most attractive features being that buying is basically as cheap as renting. Typically when buying is cheaper than renting, people will buy — if they are able. However, with a tightened lending market, millions out of work and many with tarnished credit, the buyer pool is seemingly shrinking. Despite that, the Phoenix market appears to be on the right track, though, Tim Iacono cautions that this could be a small boom created by artificially low interest rates. Foreclosures are continuing to flood the market, and once interest rates go back up the new quasi-bubble could pop.

Evidence is mounting that when home prices tumble by more than 50 percent and the Fed keeps mortgage rates at freakishly low levels, people will buy houses. This report from the LA Times talks of a resurgence in home buying where prices have fallen the furthest.

After four years of renting because they were priced out of the real estate market, Jamia Jenkins and Scott Renshaw concluded the time had arrived for them to buy.

They saw that home prices had dropped so fast here -- faster than in any other big city in the nation -- that mortgage payments would be less than the $900 they paid in rent. The city is littered with foreclosed houses, so the couple figured they could easily snatch up something in the low $100,000s.

Three months later, they're still looking. They have submitted 13 offers and been overbid each time. "It's just pathetic," said Jenkins, 53. "Investors are going out there and outbidding everyone."

While many now cheer the arrival of a housing market bottom this year - more likely in real estate sales than in prices paid - you have to wonder what's going to happen in another year or two when long-term interest rates are much higher.

For example, at today's artificially low mortgage rates, you can get a 30-year loan of $170,000 for about $900, similar to what the couple above is planning. But at the far more typical rates of seven or eight percent, that payment moves up by one-third to about $1,200.

Stated another way, that same $900 payment only buys $130,000 worth of housing - not the $170,000 as indicated above - absent the freakishly low interest rates, something that is a near certainty in the years ahead.

Naturally, that doesn't stop people from buying, as the 2006 fever seems to have returned...

Phoenix's housing bust has turned into a quasi-boom, a sign that its market may have hit bottom and a sneak preview of what a national housing recovery could look like.

More homes are selling than at any time since 2006. Prices are slowly stabilizing. Buyers are once again finding themselves in frantic bidding wars -- only this time over foreclosed houses selling at deep discounts rather than ranch homes listing for vast sums.

"The free market is at work," said Shannon Hubbard, a real estate agent and blogger here. "Prices got driven down so much that people said, 'I'm going to come out and play.' "
Home prices continue to plummet or tread water in much of the nation, but there have been tentative signs of life. Pending home sales rose 3.2% nationally in April, the second month of increases after a record low in January.

John Burns Real Estate Consulting in February identified Phoenix as "the most unique market in the nation," where affordability was better than at any time since 1981 and buying a house was once again cheaper than renting.

It should be an interesting summer as waves of new foreclosures battle waves of new buying interest from a bargain hunting public that is still fearful of more job losses.

This post can also be found on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

So What Is The Fed's Next Move?

With the growing number of positive economic reports coming out, many people are questioning whether the economy has turned a corner. Have we really turned a corner, though, or are we seeing a temporary upswing? The Federal Reserve is playing a difficult game right now. If they leave rates low too long we could be faced with inflation, but if they raise them too quickly it could hamper the recovery. With this in mind, the Fed has some challenging decisions ahead of them. How are they going to respond? Mark Thoma looks at a recent article from Tim Duy that addresses this in his blog post below.

Turning Which Corner, by Tim Duy: Is the economy turning a corner? And, if so, which corner is it turning? In my view, economic activity has been influenced by two separate trends since 2007. One is the structural response to an over-leveraged household sector that pushed the US economy into what was initially a mild recession. The second trend is the sharp cyclical recession that began in earnest in the second half of 2008 as the commodity price shock decimated already weakened households and the deepening credit crunch cut financing for a broad swath of firms. Excess capacity emerged throughout the economy, triggering the familiar phenomenon of rising unemployment. Difficult though they may be, the cyclical dynamics do not last indefinitely - generally speaking, output declines stop well short of zero GDP and unemployment will not rise to 100%. Market participants are rightly anticipating the economy is turning the corner on the cyclical trend. But I suspect we have a long path ahead of us on the structural challenge poised by overleveraged households - suggesting that the green shoots we hear so much about will yield little more than stunted growth. This is why Bernanke and Co. are more likely to fertilize the fields than plan for the next harvest.

If there is one picture that sums up the cyclical story of the past year, it is the path of real consumption:

The sharp deceleration has come to an end, of that there can be little doubt. Nor should there be much surprise. The collapse in commodity prices, lower interest rates to allow mortgage refinancing for those homeowners still above water, and tax cuts all joined to provide powerful support for household budgets allowing consumption to stabilize despite the massive job losses experienced in recent months. The stabilization in consumer demand will eventually slow the pace of job cuts. Indeed, this is already evident in the data - analysts have pointed topeak of initial claims as a key hurdle in the race to recovery. To be sure, it is difficult if not impossible to characterize the data flow as "good." But it is certainly less "bad." The path to Great Depression II has hit something of a speedbump. And seeing that, market participants have priced out some of the most cataclysmic scenarios, supporting equities and commodities while pushing bond yields higher.

There will be more opportunities for euphoria - do not underestimate the power of pent-up demand to trigger bursts of positive data. There is a portion of the population who are not credit constrained, biding their time for the perfect moment to buy a new car or schedule a vacation. Indeed, such bursts of data are more likely than not following a sharp decline in activity (the 2.2% gain in consumption spending in 1Q09 is such an example). I believe, however, that those bursts of data will not be sustainable. Far from it - at a minimum, the ability of households to carry activity forward is at its end, which by itself would leave the economy floundering .

I think it is difficult to ignore the implications of the growth of consumer dominance in defining patterns of economic activity:

The story of the last 25 years has been an increasing role for household spending, rising to perhaps a peak of conspicuous consumption, with the motto "a filet mignon in every stainless steel oven, a RV in every garage." Patterns of economic development - more to the point, capital formation - have favored taking advantage of this trend. Countless business plans are based on the expectation that this trend will continue. The baby boomers have endless wealth (not so anymore, if it ever was), there is a never ending supply of equity rich Californians to support our [insert locality] housing market, etc. Those plans will be stressed, to say the least, if the trend stalls. The implications for a reversal are even more significant. And for those that believe reversal is necessary, note that the reversal has really not even begun. What took 25 years to build may take another 25 years to destroy.

How sure are we that the trend is at an end? My thought is that the factors that supported the trend - a steady march down in the saving rate to zero and a steady march up in household debt, coupled with monetary policy that had room to go from 15% short rates to zero over nearly three decades, are at an end. Even if you believe that savings rates will not rise to 12%, the inability to sustain below zero rates puts a limit on household spending growth (as well as debt accumulation). And with underwriting conditions tightening - a permanent tightening, given the changing regulatory environment - the role of debt financing in the life of the consumer is sure to stagnate.

The challenge then is to transition the economy away from the debt-supported consumption trend that looks no longer viable to a trend more reliant on investment and external spending. This, however, is easier said then done. How quickly can 25 years of growth directed at consumer spending be reversed? And reversed to what, especially if the rest of the world continues to struggle? I see little hope of an "immaculate conception" of a fresh, sustainable pattern of economic activity. Until the transition path reveals itself, fiscal policy will be necessary to fill the economic hole likely to exist if the savings proclivities of households continue to exceed the investment intentions of firms.

Ironically, the "best" road to growth is also the riskiest from a policy perspective - a rapid expansion of emerging market activity. Such an expansion, however, would once again place the US in competition for global resources, and threaten a reversal of the commodity and interest rate trends that have been so important to supporting US consumers. Indeed, just the whiff of recovery has supported oil prices, promising an abrupt end to one of the factors supporting US consumers. In the worst case scenario, a flight of capital away from the Dollar (in response to more promising investments abroad) would generate an inflationary and structural shock that would leave the Fed juggling between renewed recession and higher inflation. In short, the optimal external shock would be one only partially supportive; anything more would push the globe to a revisiting of the commodity price surge of early 2008. Looking for a decoupling story now, however, seems like almost a naïve dream.

What is the Fed's next move? One email crossed my inbox after the April employment report suggested some thinking that the Fed could hike rates as early as November. Such a scenario (absent a stability threatening run on the Dollar) must come from a spectacularly optimistic take on incoming data. Data, I might add, that is a reflection of the massive crutch provided by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, not necessarily a sea change in the underlying economic environment. Look too how quickly bond rates began to climb after the Fed declined to expand Treasury purchases at the last FOMC meeting. More generally, consider this tidbit on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's thinking back in 2003:

The 2003 FOMC transcripts showed then-Governor Ben Bernanke very tuned into financial markets as he pressed for earlier release of Fed forecasts and a willingness to lower interest rates to zero.
From the June 2003 FOMC meeting, when the Fed lowered the target fed funds rate to 1%:

“I wonder if you might give some thought to whether or not it would make sense tactically to say publicly that we are willing to lower the federal funds rate to zero if necessary…I think it would have a beneficial effect on expectations in that there would no longer be a feeling in the market that we had reached the end of our rope.”

“It’s extremely important that we do what we can to maintain the supportive configuration in financial markets. That means continuing our easy monetary policy and, even more important, using our statement to signal our willingness to keep policy easy so long as there is a risk of further disinflation and continuing economic weakness."

A year and a half after the end of the 2001 recession, Bernanke was looking at the possibility of lowering rates to zero in order to maintain support for financial markets. And comparatively, financial markets were leaps and bounds healthier in 2003 than now. Is a rate hike really feasible this year - or even next - given the current state of dependence of the financial system on government largess? Moreover, consider the disinflation worries in 2003 and fast forward to last week:

Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further. We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly. In particular, businesses are likely to be cautious about hiring, implying that the unemployment rate could remain high for a time, even after economic growth resumes.

In this environment, we anticipate that inflation will remain low. Indeed, given the sizable margin of slack in resource utilization and diminished cost pressures from oil and other commodities, inflation is likely to move down some over the next year relative to its pace in 2008. However, inflation expectations, as measured by various household and business surveys, appear to have remained relatively stable, which should limit further declines in inflation.

Now consider the output gap over the last decade:

The current gap already far exceeds that of the last disinflationary scare, and Bernanke expects it to continue to expand further, and then diminish only gradually. As long as the gap continues to expand, Bernanke's bias will be in favor of additional easing. The only question is whether he remains content to allow TALF funds to slowly trickle into the economy, or speeds the pace of policy with expansions of longer dated Treasury purchases. Given Bernanke's past behavior, expecting patience on his part seems unrealistic. Moreover, the last jobs report provides less room for optimism than observers suggest. Importantly, Jim Hamilton notes the decline in hours worked appears unabated; threat of a currency collapse aside, there will be no policy tightening, only easing, until hours worked moves unquestionably and sustainably in a positive trajectory.

Bottom Line: The economy looks to be turning a corner relative to the downward cyclical force of last year. But this is only a partial victory, as the factors that that started us down this path - namely, a debt-supported consumer spending dynamic - remain in play, and will likely remain in play for years, arguing for a long period of slow growth, punctuated by short-lived bursts of positive data. In such an environment, and considering the importance of government support to sustain financial stability, the odds favor continued policy easing. Those looking for a more positive scenario are pinning their hopes on either an unlikely rapid return to past patterns of consumer behavior, an unlikely rapid evolution in patterns of economic activity that are not consumer dependent, or a decoupling of emerging market economic activity from the US (which could pose a different set of policy challenges).

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Could Legalizing Marijuana Help Solve California's Budget Problems?

The budget problems in California are well known across the nation, but one desperate idea to help balance the budget is sure to meet opposition from the rest of the country. California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has apparently requested a full debate on the legalization of marijuana. The benefit — of course — to California if marijuana is legalized is that they can tax sales of the substance. According to a recent public opinion poll of California voters, a majority favor legalization of marijuana. Perhaps citizens feel that compared to the other budget cuts — and new taxes — on the table to shrink the deficit, legalizing marijuana might not be so bad. For more on the situation in California, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

It appears as though we'll be getting out of the Golden State in the nick of time as the fallout from the likely rejection by voters of most May 19th ballot initiatives is set to make things a whole lot worse for California's budget.

The Sacramento Bee reports on the relentless deterioration in the state's finances since the last budget bill was passed a few months back, one that really just forestalled the inevitable.

California's projected budget deficit has grown as large as $21.3 billion through next June because of a sharp economic decline, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger disclosed Monday in a letter to legislative leaders.

The latest projection means lawmakers will have to negotiate deep spending cuts in education, corrections and welfare as well as consider borrowing and new fees or taxes.

The announcement comes less than three months after the Legislature and the governor closed $34 billion of a then $40 billion state budget deficit with tax hikes and spending cuts and asked voters to eliminate the rest in next week's special election.

These "new" estimates will probably turn out to be just as overly optimistic as every previous forecast and once again, the state of California is blazing a trail for the rest of the country, this time on the road to insolvency.

There is more than a little irony in the Gubernator being voted into office some six years ago when his predecessor had similar problems that, in retrospect, look like a walk in the park by comparison, unless of course another housing bubble is in the offing.

New plans are being prepared to close the new budget gaps.

The governor did not disclose his solutions Monday. But he warned groups last week he will consider borrowing $2 billion from cities and counties, releasing low-level offenders in state prisons and reducing school funding by $3.6 billion. The state also could eliminate its planned $2 billion reserve.

"It's well beyond triage," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "We're talking about painful and difficult decisions. You can't just finesse your way through $15 billion or $21 billion."

It's odd how $15 billion or $20 billion really doesn't sound like a lot of money anymore...

Here's one way the state might be able to generate new revenue. After having been talked about for some time now, momentum is building to somehow find a way to tax marijuana (presumably, after legalizing it) as reported by the U.K. Guardian.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has never apologized for smoking pot – and loving it — at the height of his bodybuilding career in the 1970s. Now, as a struggling Republican governor of California reaching a crossroads in his political career, he might yet become America's most visible advocate for legalizing marijuana.

The actor-turned-politician gladdened the heart of every joint-roller and dope fiend across the Golden State earlier this week when he said it was time for a full debate on legalization.

Schwarzenegger was careful not to say too much – he stopped short of saying he was in favor of legalizing cannabis now – but his words broke a long-standing taboo among both Republicans and Democrats who have previously felt obliged to say marijuana must remain illegal, and marijuana users and pushers be subject to criminal prosecution.

The governor spoke in response to a new public opinion poll showing that 56% of registered voters in California favor legalizing and taxing marijuana – in part to help the state out of the worst budget crisis in its history.

If they ever do such a thing, this California trend is likely to meet with some resistance in many other parts of the country.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Expectations Of A Dollar Collapse

So far — despite the huge run up in U.S. debt — the U.S. dollar has held strong during the financial crisis, however, Andy Xie expects a major collapse to come. He feels that pressures from China, and an overall loss of faith in the U.S. financial policy, will destroy the greenback. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Andy Xie expects the dollar to collapse:

If China loses faith the dollar will collapse, by Andy Xie, Commentary, Financial Times: Emerging economies such as China and Russia are calling for alternatives to the dollar as a reserve currency. The trigger is the Federal Reserve’s liberal policy of expanding the money supply to prop up America’s banking system and its over-indebted households. ...[T]he Fed may be forced into printing dollars massively, which would eventually trigger high inflation or even hyper-inflation and cause great damage to countries that hold dollar assets in their foreign exchange reserves.

The chatter over alternatives to the dollar mainly reflects the unhappiness with US monetary policy among the emerging economies that have amassed nearly $10,000bn in foreign exchange reserves, mostly in dollar assets. ...[T]he US situation is unique: it borrows in its own currency, and the dollar is the world’s dominant reserve currency. The US can disregard its creditors’ concerns for the time being without worrying about a dollar collapse. ...

The faith of the Chinese in America’s power and responsibility, and the petrodollar holdings of the gulf countries that depend on US military protection, are the twin props for the dollar’s global status. Ethnic Chinese ... may account for half of the foreign holdings of dollar assets. ...

The US could repair its balance sheet through asset sales and fiscal transfers instead of just printing money. ... The country’s vast and unexplored natural resource holdings could be auctioned off. Americans may view these ideas as unthinkable. It is hard to imagine that a superpower needs to sell the family silver to stay solvent. Hence, printing money seems a less painful way out. ...

Other currencies are not safe havens either. ... Central banks are punishing savers to redeem the sins of debtors and speculators. Unfortunately, ethnic Chinese are the biggest savers.

Diluting Chinese savings to bail out America’s failing banks and bankrupt households, though highly beneficial to the US national interest in the short term, will destroy the dollar’s global status. Ethnic Chinese demand for the dollar has been waning already. ...

America’s policy is pushing China towards developing an alternative financial system. ... Its recent decision to turn Shanghai into a financial centre by 2020 reflects China’s anxiety over relying on the dollar system. The year 2020 seems remote... However, if global stagflation takes hold, as I expect it to, it will force China to accelerate its reforms to float its currency and create a single, independent and market-based financial system. When that happens, the dollar will collapse.

Barry Eichengreen explains why using SDRs as a reserve currency, as has been suggested by the governor of the People's Bank of China, is not as easy as it might seem:

Commercialize the SDR now, by Barry Eichengreen, Commentary, Project Syndicate: Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, made a splash prior to the recent G-20 summit by arguing that the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights should replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. ...

Sympathizers acknowledged the contradictions... Central banks understandably seek more reserves as their economies grow. But if those reserves mainly take the form of dollars, then their rising demand allows the United States to finance its external deficit at an artificially low cost. In turn, this allows unsustainable imbalances to build up, leading to an inevitable crash. ...

But skeptics question whether the SDR could ever replace the dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency, for the simple reason that the SDR is not a currency. It is a composite accounting unit in which the IMF issues credits to its members. Those credits ... cannot be used in the other transactions in which central banks and governments engage. ... This means that the SDR is not an attractive unit for official reserves.

This would not be easy to change. Despite the trials and tribulations of the American economy, dollar securities remain the dominant form of reserves because of the unparalleled depth and liquidity of US markets. Central banks can buy and sell dollar securities without moving those markets. There is also the convenience factor: dollars are widely used in a variety of other transactions. As a result, not even the euro has seriously challenged the dollar as the dominant reserve currency. ...

If China is serious about elevating the SDR to reserve-currency status, it should take steps to create a liquid market in SDR claims. It could issue its own SDR-denominated bonds. ... Of course, an earlier attempt was made to create a commercial market in SDR-denominated claims ... in the 1970’s... But these efforts ultimately went nowhere. The dollar being more liquid, its first-mover advantage proved impossible to surmount.

Overcoming that advantage now would require someone to act as market-maker ... and subsidise the market in its start-up phase. The obvious someone is the IMF. The Fund could stand ready to buy and sell SDR claims to all comers, ... at narrow bid/ask spreads competitive with those for dollars. ...

Transforming the SDR into a true international currency would require surmounting other obstacles. The IMF would have to be able to issue additional SDRs in periods of shortage... The IMF’s management would also have to be empowered to decide on SDR issuance, just as the Fed can decide to offer currency swaps. For the SDR to become a true international currency, in other words, the IMF would have to become more like a global central bank and international lender of last resort.

For worries about inflation, see Inflation Nation by Alan Meltzer (and also see Krugman's response, A History Lesson for Alan Meltzer).

[Note: A lot of people have noted the apparent contradiction in the concern from Krugman over deflation, and from Meltzer over inflation, e.g. Mankiw for one, but here's an example of this from Mankiw's colleague, Martin Feldstein, within the same article. It's simply a short-run, long-run distinction.]

This post can also be found on economistsview.typepad.com.

How Is The Economic Medicine Working?

The government has been injecting trillions of dollars into the economy, but how has it been working so far? James Picerno looks at recent events and attempts to answer that question in his blog post below. In addition Picerno takes a look at what lies ahead for the U.S. economy, and offers some words of wisdom for investors.

In late-March, we asked: Is the medicine working? By medicine we meant the massive injection of liquidity into the economy as a cure for fending off deflation and laying the groundwork for recovery. At the time, we were mildly encouraged, in part due to the rising inflation forecast as derived from the spread between the nominal and inflation-indexed 10-year Treasuries.

More than a month later, there's still reason for optimism, perhaps more so, thanks to the so-called green shoots that suggest better days ahead. Yet the rate spread, which is to say the market's inflation outlook, hasn't changed much since late-March. The current forecast is for inflation of 1.4% for the next 10 years, just barely up from around 1.3% from the end of the first quarter. In both cases, that's a healthy change from expecting flat pricing, as was the case at the end of 2008. Low inflation as far as the eye can see would be nice, but is that a reasonable expectation?

In the months ahead there will be a thin line between a healthy rise in inflation expectations and the potential for burdensome pricing pressures later on. Deflation is a hazard to be avoided for a number of reasons. Although we can't quite shut the book on the danger, the odds look increasingly in favor of mild inflation for the foreseeable future, as the chart above suggests. Behind this reasoning is the growing sentiment that the recession is at or near a bottom. Is it time for the Fed to begin tightening? Or are the green shoots still too tentative?

"We're seeing more indications of perhaps a bottoming in the economy," Bill O'Neill of LOGIC Advisors tells Dow Jones. "So there is an increasing—and it will continue to increase—concern surrounding inflation potential."

Gold, the perennial inflation hedge, seems to be considering the possibility, although this market hasn't quite made up its mind. The price of the metal has been hovering around $900 for much of this year, just below its all-time high of $1,033, set back in March 2008. The 10-year Treasury yield, meanwhile, has been climbing, recently bumping up against 3.2% on renewed worries that inflation may now be the bigger risk. Even so, a 10-year yield of 3.2% is still quite low.

None of the inflation anxiety is worrying the stock market, which has now reversed the selloff in the first quarter. Indeed, the S&P 500 is now marginally up on the year, as of last night's close, on expectations that by the end of this year the economy will be sitting up and prepared to get out of bed.

The big question is whether all the renewed hope that the worst is over is really just the byproduct of a bear market bounce in markets and inflation expectations? Given the extreme waves of selling last year and into March, a rebound was all but assured if the world economy didn't collapse. As we now know, it didn't. There are still lots of problems, but we'll all be here next year and so it was time to reprice assets upwards to reflect a humbled but otherwise enduring economic climate.

Investors have cheered the signs that the U.S. economy no longer seems to be contracting at an accelerating pace. Given the fears of what could have happened, that's certainly a reasonable response. Deciding that you're not going to fall into the abyss is always encouraging. But that's still a long way from arguing that growth is imminent, or that the economy won't tread water for a year or two.

The first phase of the post-apocalyptic visions that prevailed six months ago may be over. If so, now we're faced with the more difficult chore of deciding how to repair and rebuild the economy to foster growth while containing inflation. The hardest days are yet to come. Unless you're expecting a seamless transition, keeping some cash at the ready still makes sense, albeit less so than in past months. Volatility isn't banished, it's only hibernating, which suggests another round of value-oriented pricing opportunities in the major asset classes.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Wages Are Falling Across America

We have been hearing a lot about unemployment, but there is another equally disturbing trend happening at the same time. In order to avoid layoffs some companies are asking employees to take wage cuts. While wage cuts might seem like no big deal — the employees still have their jobs after all — they can be devastating to the economy. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma that looks at a recent article from Paul Krugman.

Are we doing enough to reduce the risk that we’ll face a sustained period of deflation and stagnation?:

Falling Wage Syndrome, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Wages are falling all across America. Some of the wage cuts, like the givebacks by Chrysler workers, are the price of federal aid. Others, like the tentative agreement on a salary cut here at The Times, are the result of discussions between employers and their union employees. Still others reflect the brute fact of a weak labor market: workers don’t dare protest when their wages are cut, because they don’t think they can find other jobs.

Whatever the specifics, however, falling wages are a symptom of a sick economy. And they’re a symptom that can make the economy even sicker.

First things first: anecdotes about falling wages are proliferating, but how broad is the phenomenon? The answer is, very.

It’s true that many workers are still getting pay increases. But there are enough pay cuts out there that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average cost of employing workers ... rose only two-tenths of a percent in the first quarter of this year — the lowest increase on record. Since the job market is still getting worse, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if overall wages started falling later this year.

But why is that a bad thing? After all, many workers are accepting pay cuts in order to save jobs. What’s wrong with that?

The answer lies in one of those paradoxes...: workers at any one company can help save their jobs by accepting lower wages, but when employers across the economy cut wages at the same time, the result is higher unemployment. ... So there’s no benefit to the economy from lower wages. Meanwhile, the fall in wages can worsen the economy’s problems on other fronts.

In particular, falling wages, and hence falling incomes, worsen the problem of excessive debt: your monthly mortgage payments don’t go down with your paycheck. America came into this crisis with household debt as a percentage of income at its highest level since the 1930s. Families are trying to work that debt down by saving more ... but as wages fall, they’re chasing a moving target. ... Things get even worse if businesses and consumers expect wages to fall further in the future. ...

Concern about falling wages isn’t just theory. Japan ... is an object lesson in how wage deflation can contribute to economic stagnation.

So what should we conclude from the growing evidence of sagging wages in America? Mainly that stabilizing the economy isn’t enough: we need a real recovery.

There has been a lot of talk lately about green shoots and all that, and there are indeed indications that the economic plunge that began last fall may be leveling off. The National Bureau of Economic Research might even declare the recession over later this year.

But the unemployment rate is almost certainly still rising. And all signs point to a terrible job market for many months if not years to come — which is a recipe for continuing wage cuts, which will in turn keep the economy weak.

To break that vicious circle, we basically need more: more stimulus, more decisive action on the banks, more job creation.

Credit where credit is due: President Obama and his economic advisers seem to have steered the economy away from the abyss. But the risk that America will turn into Japan — that we’ll face years of deflation and stagnation — seems, if anything, to be rising.

Here's a graph of the Phillips curve over the last two and a half years (2006:Q3 - 2008Q4) as measured by the year over year percentage change in the employment cost index (total compensation) versus the civilian unemployment rate:

Artificially restraining wages from falling is not the correct response, the key is to drive the unemployment rate down so that the labor market tightens and wages rise in response. That is why it's essential that stimulus programs provide a boost to employment, and I've wondered from the start if the stimulus programs we enacted have focused enough on providing employment opportunities. Building new infrastructure does provide long-term benefits, and that gives political cover to the large government expenditure and tax cuts that were enacted, but infrastructure projects alone do not give the maximum possible boost to employment. Providing jobs - some of which may not directly boost long-run productivity - is an essential component of short-run stabilization policy, and there is more that we could do to give unemployed workers opportunities for employment until jobs begin to reappear in the private sector.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Fed Holds Steady...For Now...

Earlier this week the Fed decided to hold steady with their previous policies, however, it is still likely that they will need to provide additional easing in the months ahead. Mark Thoma looks at an article from Tim Duy, in his blog post below, that talks more about the economy and what's likely in store for Fed policy.

Despite Green Shoots, Odds Favor More Easing, by Tim Duy: The Fed took an interesting risk by holding policy steady on Wednesday.With green shoots all the rage, policymakers are ready to step to the sidelines as they monitor the progress of their many programs. And clearly, they must have known that the 3% level on 10-year Treasuries was dependent on the expectation that policymakers would expand the pace of outright purchases of those assets, but are betting that economic conditions will remain sufficiently weak to prevent a crippling increase in rates. Still, given that policymakers still see the economy in decline, albeit at a slower rate, the odds favor additional easing in the months ahead, especially considering expectations of a widening output gap. Recall that labor markets, and the threat of deflation, kept the Fed easing well past the end of the recession in 2001.

Short of an outbreak of inflation, or a unexpected and unlikely surge of growth, there is little reason to think that the Fed is ready to bring policy to a sustained pause. And an imminent rise in inflation remains an outside risk for the Fed; the focus remains consistently on disinflation or, worse yet, outright deflation. A key paragraph is:

In light of increasing economic slack here and abroad, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued. Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term.

Policymakers are counting on a rising output gap (both here and abroad) and lags in the price setting process to keep inflation at bay. Indeed, this must be the case, as some of the current numbers are really not all that comforting. I am not inclined to place too much focus on headline inflation - oil prices appear to have found a bottom around $50 a barrel, and sustained hints of a firming of global economic activity would promise to send prices higher, thus offsetting the strong disinflationary impact of falling energy prices since the middle of 2008. In contrast to low year-over-year headline numbers, the personal income and outlays report for March revealed that core PCE prices gained by 0.2% in each of the past three months, pushing the annualized three month trend back above 2%:

And note that near-term inflation expectations have climbed back up into a normal range:

From this perspective, policymakers have done a good job anchoring inflation expectations against the possibility of deflation. Is this enough, however, to unsettle FOMC members? Despite these inflationary hints, it is simply unlikely that the Fed would ignore the disinflationary implications of the output gap. One way to ignore the gap is to argue that the US will revert to an emerging market inflation dynamic. I think such an argument requires a steady depreciation of the Dollar to hold - which could happen, but a Dollar crisis looks, for the moment, unlikely given relative global weakness. One could also argue that estimates of potential output are optimistic and don't reflect the importance of structural change in the economy. This is the issue that Nick Rowe at the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative attempts to tackle:

Even in the short run a good banking and financial system will be important in re-allocating capital between growing and declining sectors, if there are shifts in relative demand. If people want fewer cars and more restaurant meals, but banks cannot shift loans from car manufacturers to restaurants, the Short Run Aggregate Supply curve may shift left, because the restaurants won't be able to expand to meet demand, and car manufacturers' prices or wages may be sticky downwards.

If you see the financial crisis as causing the recession by shifting the SRAS curve left, then monetary and fiscal policies, which shift the AD curve right, are not the appropriate cure. Even if you see leftward shifts of the SRAS curve as only part of the story, you will see limits on what monetary and fiscal policy can achieve. When expansionary monetary and fiscal policies start to cause excessive inflation, before output and employment have returned fully to normal, you will know that purely AD policies have reached the limit of what can be expected from them.

Nick is slapped down by Brad DeLong:

But if bad banks have shifted the AS curve inward, then right now we should have stagflation: depression and inflation, as output falls and prices rise. We don't. The argument that fiscal and monetary policies won't reduce unemployment to normal levels because we have a supply side problem is completely incoherent in an AS-AD framework.

Brad is correct that in a traditional AS-AD framework, bad banks are demand shocks, not supply shocks. There is still something about Nick's argument that is important - the financial system redirected capital investment into housing and consumption related activities. Presumably, potential output includes the ability to build and sell as many houses the US economy produced at the height of the housing bubble. But what good is that output if we don’t want to build and sell that many houses in the future? How do we redirect capital away from those sectors? And how long does it take? Arguably, the narrowing of the US trade deficit is pushing that adjustment forward, as the US economy can't focus entirely on producing nontradable goods. Recall Brad DeLong from 2005:

There is an alternative scenario, one in which foreigners'--including foreign central banks'--desired holdings of dollar-denominated assets shortly hit the wall, and the asset price shifts that result from desired holdings' hitting the wall reduce, or do not increase, confidence in the dollar.

In this alternative scenario, the U.S. has to move about ten million workers out of currently-favored sectors--construction, home-equity-credit financed consumer expenditures, and so on--into export and import-competing manufactures. How much structural unemployment does such a sectoral shift require, and how long does the structural unemployment last? Other countries have to shift up to forty million workers out of export manufactures into other industries, and to generate demand for the products of those industries (without destabilizing their own monetary systems and asset prices, as Japan appears to have done at the end of the 1980s). The U.S. Federal Reserve would have to cope with whatever inflationary pressures are generated by rising import prices. Foreign central banks would have to cope with whatever stresses on their own asset prices are created by enormous losses of value in the stocks and bonds of their exporting companies.

If structural unemployment is rising - not because banks are currently bad, but engaged in bad behavior in the past - attempts to reduce unemployment back to pre-recession levels will yield higher inflation. This problem is minimized if labor resources can be quickly redirected into other sectors, a process that Nick above is implying is hampered by the existence now of bad banks. But, as Brad suggested in 2005, getting to inflation in the current environment seems to require a Dollar collapse - a story that for now is difficult to tell.

All of which is interesting, but even if you believe that structural unemployment is rising, I don't think anyone believes it is near the 8.5% rate for March (not to mention the underemployment rate of 15.6%). Nor does anyone expect that recent green shoots are sufficient to keep unemployment from rising further. Moreover, note that the Employment Costs Index released today reveals the continued slide in employee compensation costs - consistent with the FOMC's concerns about economic slack. Indeed, the ECI highlights the risks of the Fed's move to hold steady policy: Declining wage growth, coupled with higher interest rates, would play havoc with household efforts to reduce balance sheets and intensify the need to boost saving rates. Hence why the risks still favor additional policy easing - especially if programs such as TALF and PPIP are less successful than imagined.

In short, the shoots are much too green and the output gap much too wide to stimulate much discussion on Constitution Avenue that the end of easing has conclusively been reached. A pause to assess, yes. But Fed officials will be looking for clear and convincing evidence that economic activity is both self sustaining (not likely to fade after the initial burst of federal stimulus moves through the pipeline) and sufficient to substantially reduce the output gap before they sound the all clear signal. An end to the rapid pace of job loss is very different from a return to steady job growth. Again, recall the sustained pattern of easing in the wake of the 2001 recession - we need to go a long way up from -6% GDP growth before the job engine is started. To be sure, there should be some lingering concern that the Fed will act quickly (or at least the markets will act quickly), if there is a perceived need to withdraw monetary accommodation. But the data are well short of what would be necessary to justify such a shift in policy in the near future.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

We Need A Root-And-Branch Reorganization Of The Financial System

Some people are open to the government handing over trillions of dollars to the banks, but no taxpayers want the money handed over without proper controls in place that will ensure it goes to good use. This has been one of the biggest issues the public has had with the bailout efforts thus far. For that reason Steve Waldman is calling for a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Steve Waldman says "we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system":

Value for value, Steve Waldman: Would it have been better if Timothy Geithner had had the power to guarantee all bank debt early on? As James Surowiecki reminds us, that was part of the Swedish solution. Justin Fox plausibly suggests that we might have avoided a lot of pain with a fast, full guarantee.

But that's not the point. The question isn't whether we could have avoided this crisis, if only we had cut a big check. We could have, and that was not lost to any of us debating these issues more than a year ago. (See e.g. me or Mark Thoma.) Had we done so, the near-to-medium term fiscal costs might have been less than they probably will be now. So, with 20/20 hindsight, would it have been a good idea?

How you answer that question depends upon how you view the crisis. Is it an aberration, a shock to a basically sound financial system, or is it a painful symptom of an even more dangerous condition? ...

If you think that our financial system just needs some tweaks, some consolidation of regulators' organizational charts and sterner supervision, then you should prefer that we had just cut a check, passed Sarbanes/Oxley Book II, and moved on. But that is not what I, or most proponents of temporary receivership for insolvent banks, believe.

If you believe, as I do, that we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system, which must necessarily involve the dismemberment and intrusive restraint of deeply entrenched institutions, does that mean pain is the only way forward, "the worse the better" in the old revolutionary cliché? It need not mean that. But it does mean that palliative measures, like giving the banks money, would have to be attached to curative measures, like enacting capital requirements and imposing regulatory burdens that would force financial behemoths to break themselves up or become boring narrow banks. For almost two years, policymakers at the Fed and the Treasury, including Secretary Geithner, have offered bail-out after bail-out and asked for nothing serious in return.

Do I regret that Henry Paulson was not empowered to issue a blanket guarantee of bank assets early on, as the Swedes did? No, I don't regret that at all. Why not? Because I think that "Hank the Tank" was a crappy negotiator... He would have offered the financial system sugar without requiring it to make the medicine go down. He may believe, quite sincerely, that a cure would be worse than the disease. He may believe that, but he is wrong. ...

You may believe that we have learned our lesson, that if we can just get some stability and comfort for a while we are prepared to do what must be done. That's a respectable position. But I don't share it, and neither do the majority of Americans who are unwilling to allow their representatives to sign off on any more expensive aspirin. We want value for value, an ironclad commitment of root and branch reform in exchange for the unimaginable sums of money we are being asked to hand over. ... Congress would, because the public would, support large, explicit transfers, if they were attached to reforms sufficiently radical to prevent a recurrence, and suitably punitive towards the people who managed the system that brought us here. Value for value. ...

I ... would be willing to hold my nose and tolerate a Swedish-style guarantee of bank creditors. I'd acquiesce to that even without formal nationalization. Nationalization is ... a means to an end, and the desired end is a world in which too big to fail is too big to exist for any financial institution that originates or holds credit risk in any form. Secretary Geithner could send a bill to Congress today that would put all banks with a balance sheet of over $50B into run-off mode... I'd fax my Congressman and support a $2T on-budget buyout of bank creditors as part of that bill, as long as it had teeth. ("Teeth" would imply making sure that off-balance-sheet and derivative exposures were included in the size cap, etc.)

It's not that us pitchfork-totin' populists are unwilling to pay the bill. It's that we want to know that in exchange for writing a very, very large check, the people that we are paying will actually deliver the goods. Given the behavior of bankers before the crisis and of shifty policymakers during, we have every reason to watch warily and to insist upon every precaution while we hand over suitcase after suitcase of freshly printed Federal Reserve notes.

This post can also be found on economistsview.typepad.com.

Stress Tests Reveal Three Banks In Need Of Additional Funding

The controversial stress tests commissioned by the government on the 19 largest financial institutions have revealed at least 3 in need of additional funding. These stress tests were meant to ensure that banks have enough capital reserves to last through the recession. For more on this, read the following article from Housing Wire.

At least three of the 19 financial institutions with assets in excess of $100bn may face pressure to build up capital reserves after failing to meet desired operational projections through the government-mandated stress tests, unnamed sources told the Wall Street Journal. The identities of the three firms remained confidential at the time this story went to press, but analysts told the Journal they likely include regional banks with commercial real estate exposure in the Midwest and Southeast.

The stress tests aimed to determine whether major US banks retain enough capital to weather even the more adverse economic projections. Federal officials offered three alternatives to banks that lack sufficient reserves: raise private investor funds, receive additional government aid or convert the government’s existing preferred shares into common shares, effectively placing part of the firm in government ownership.

The Federal Reserve, in reporting stress test methods late Friday, say most banks retain enough capital to weather a longer, more severe recession, although deteriorating economic conditions affect the reserve capital held among some banks.

This article can also be found on housingwire.com.

Geithner's New PPIP Plan Looks Too Much Like Failed TALF Program

Hopefully Geithners new PPIP plan that was created to deal with toxic assets works out better than the TALF failure, but unfortunately it looks eerily familiar. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

The TALF program intended to increase auto loans, student loans, and credit card lending has a lot in common with the Geithner public private investment plan to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets, including the valuable non-recourse loan feature. The fact that the TALF program is not living up to expectations - not even close - leads to questions about whether the Geithner plan will encounter similar problems:

Federal Program to Boost Private Lending Struggles to Get Money to Consumers, by Neil Irwin, Washington Post: In its first two months, the government's signature initiative to support consumer lending has fallen well short of expectations, deploying only a fraction of the amount officials had hoped to extend to stimulate auto loans, student loans and credit card lending. ...

Under [the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or] TALF, private investors ... put up a relatively small amount of money to be matched with a larger loan from the Federal Reserve. The combined funds are then used to purchase newly created, highly rated securities, which in turn fund a wide range of consumer and business lending.

If the securities become more valuable, the private investors stand to repay their government loans and make a healthy profit; if the securities plummet in value, the investors can lose only what they put up originally...

Officials envisioned TALF supporting tens of billions of dollars a month in new lending, saying it could eventually total $1 trillion. But in March, when it was launched, it backed only $4.7 billion in auto loans and credit cards. For April, it logged only $1.7 billion.

Sources involved in the program said private investors have been reluctant to work with the government, which they view as an unreliable business partner. ... There are restrictions on the business activities of participants in the program. ... But perhaps more significant ... is a fear that the government could retroactively change the terms, exacting new limits on what investors can pay their executives, for example, or trying to claw back profits that firms make in the program. ...

Federal Reserve officials have privately urged President Obama and congressional leaders to publicly state that the government views investors in voluntary programs such as TALF differently than it does companies that need a federal bailout.

Investors are not the only ones who need comforting, though. The Fed relies on primary dealers, or brokerage houses, to play a key role as intermediaries in TALF...

But the primary dealers have been extremely cautious..., hobbling the program's progress... Lawyers at the New York Fed ... have been working to help the brokers and investors work through the issues, and government officials are hopeful about the program's future. ...

The Public-Private Investment Program, designed to buy loans and securities from banks, is structured similarly to TALF. ...

And the differences between the PPIP and TALF programs that I can think of, e.g. that the PPIP has toxic assets as part of the bargain, and some of the banks will need a bailout so the reassurances about executive pay, etc. can't be made in these cases, are additional factors working against the PPIP's success.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

U.K. Budget Met With Fierce Opposition

If we thought things were bad over here in the U.S., at least we might be able to take some comfort in the fact it is looking as bad or worse in the U.K. Alistair Darlings just released the 2009 budget for the U.K., and while it does not look pretty, the IMF thinks he is being way too optimistic in his projects. From the looks of things the U.K. is going to be adding an incredible amount of debt to their already enormous deficit, and growth is unlikely to come for a few more years. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

The new U.K. budget announced a short time ago is being greeted with boos and catcalls as taxes are being raised and debts continue to mount - they sound a bit like the state of California with the important distinction that the Golden State doesn't own a printing press.

This report in the Telegraph provides the details:

Alistair Darling has pledged to hit Britain’s richest workers and savers with a smattering of new taxes to help support the UK through its worst recession since the 1930s.

In what is likely to go down in history as the most downbeat and depressed Budget in peacetime history, the Chancellor pledged to raise the income tax rate for those earning over £150,000 to 50pc, hearkening back to the high tax rates imposed by Governments in the 1960s and 1970s.

He also confirmed that the Government will be forced to borrow £175bn this year and £173bn the next, and would have to increase the size of the national debt from recent levels of below 40pc to almost 80pc within the next five years.

It seems that almost every developed nation in the world is now in the process of turning Japanese in that national debt relative to GDP is rapidly approaching parity. In the U.S., we'll reach that point before you know it.

There's a complete summary of the new U.K. budget here.

If this video clip is any indication, it's getting a bit testy across the pond.

Darling has already downgraded his economic forecasts from just a few months ago which, as is the case for nearly all government projections, were overly optimistic for 2009. He now pegs economic growth at minus 3.5 percent this year with a rosier outlook for 2010.

In something of an embarrassment for U.K. government economists, the IMF cast a bit of cold water on their updated forecast for next year, predicting another period of contraction according to this report in the Guardian.

Britain will be stuck in recession for another year as consumers reeling from the housing crash cut back their spending, the International Monetary Fund warns today – undermining Alistair Darling's budget claim that growth will resume at the end of the year.

In its twice-yearly World Economic Outlook, the IMF predicts that recession in the UK will be "quite severe", with the economy shrinking by 4.1% this year, and continuing to contract, by 0.4%, in 2010. In the budget, Darling forecast 1.25% growth in 2010.

Somehow, given the way things have deteriorated over the last six months, it wouldn't be surprising to see even the IMF forecast prove to be too optimistic.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

What Will The Government Do With Goldman Sachs?

Storied investment banking firm, Goldman Sachs, is preparing to pay the government back around $5 billion in borrowed TARP funds, but whether or not the government will allow it to happen is the real story. Goldman no longer wants to be burdened with the rules and regulations being imposed on them by the government, and thanks to a $12 billion windfall from the AIG bailout the firm is in a position to return the funds. If they are allowed to return the funds, though, there is worry that it will put the other bailed out banks in a precarious position. For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning's Shah Gilani.

Not a fan of socialism? Me either. But, if the federal government has to backstop free market excesses with taxpayer dollars, how will it eventually unravel the veil, or tarp of intervention? Or should it? The answers are about to unfold before our eyes.

In the case of the government and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), a decision on whether Goldman can repay government bailout money and be freed to pay its employees whatever it wants, may determine the winners and losers coming out of this financial collapse, and what kind of government Americans will end up with.

In her extraordinary 1999 book, “Goldman Sachs the Culture of Success,” Lisa Endlich vividly chronicles the “history, mystique and remarkable success of the world’s premier investment bank.” That same year, the storied partnership structure of Goldman was junked in a wildly successful initial public offering (IPO).

I still keep three pages of notes distilled from Endlich’s book on how to create and foster a culture of success, a la the Goldman model. They now seem quaint in light of the winner-take-all at the expense of the shareholders mentality that eviscerated the old-school standards.

That’s not to say that Goldman isn’t still wildly successful. On Monday, Goldman pre-announced first quarter net income of $1.81 billion. Record net revenue of $6.56 billion from trading fixed income, currencies and commodities was offset by losses in stock trading, real estate, investment banking and money management. Nonetheless, earnings were almost twice analysts’ expectations.

Yesterday (Tuesday), on the heels of its good performance, Goldman announced that it had priced a public offering of 40,650,407 shares of common stock at $123 per share. Goldman will be its own sole underwriter and total gross proceeds are expected to yield approximately $5 billion.

Ironically, $5 billion is what Goldman needs to pay back the U.S. government in order to escape the salary and bonus caps imposed on bailout recipients.

A brief history.

On the remarkable day of September 15, 2008 Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. announced its intention to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. On the same day, venerable investment bank Merrill Lynch disappeared into the waiting arms of Bank of America Corp. (BAC). Six short days later, on a Sunday afternoon, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced approval of expedited applications by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley (MS) to change their status from investment banks to bank holding companies. The rapid approval of their applications would, the Fed said, “provide increased funding support” allowing both banks to borrow directly and permanently from the Fed’s Discount Window and its other capital liquidity enhancing facilities.

But that wouldn’t be enough. As the crisis mounted, on Sept. 23, Goldman raised $5 billion from billionaire investor Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK.A, BRK.B). And with the storied investor now onboard, Goldman rushed to raise another $5.75 billion in a common stock offering.

On Oct. 14, with the mushrooming cloud of the crisis enveloping seemingly every major bank in the country, then-Treasury Secretary Henry M Paulson (formerly Goldman Sachs’ Chairman and CEO) and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke summoned the nine largest bank chief executives to Washington where they were told that they would each take a piece of government capital. Only Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) is on record as saying it didn’t need the money, but the handout was forced on it too. Goldman itself took $10 billion.

On Wall Street, and nowhere more so than at Goldman, it’s about compensation. But recipients of bailout money are now facing the full disclosure of their executive compensation deals, as well as having to obtain nonbinding shareholder voting on compensation issues.

The Treasury is advocating a salary ceiling for recipient senior executives of $500,000 and any additional compensation to be paid in restricted stock that vests only when government funds have been entirely repaid. And there are restrictions on golden parachutes and threats that Congress will impose a 90% bonus tax.

It’s enough to make Wall Street quake in its canyon.

With the public backlash against the taxpayer-funded bonuses paid to executives and traders at crippled firms, banks are desperate to return government bailout money so they can be freed from government salary and bonus oversight.

But unfortunately for many of these banks, oversight is mandated for any recipient of “exceptional assistance,” which is defined as assistance of more than $5 billion.

No wonder Goldman wants to pay back $5 billion of the $10 billion it got.

I have nothing against the free market setting compensation benchmarks, or private companies paying successful executives whatever their shareholders vote to be acceptable. And I’m not singling out Goldman Sachs. But, nowhere else in the U.S. economy - or at the highest levels of government - is there anything like Goldman’s visible and invisible hands at work. And they’re working in the open and more insidiously, behind the scenes and through lobbyists, to make themselves a lot of money.

There is simply not enough space in any book, let alone any article, to list the power, placement and influence of current and former Goldman Sachs alumni pulling the levers of hedge funds, corporations, politicians and governments. If you want to enlighten yourself about what you don’t know about these players, simply Google: “List Goldman Sachs alumni.”

Goldman, as much as any investment bank, got its hands dirty in the subprime securities business and the credit default swap business. As to its influence and its claim to premier bank status, the first question that comes to my mind is: Would Goldman even exist today if Hank Paulson hadn’t had Goldman’s current CEO Lloyd Blankenfein in on meetings about saving American International Group Inc. (AIG)?

Out of the $185 billion that AIG received from taxpayers, Goldman got $12.5 billion for exposure it had to credit default swaps written by AIG. I’ve been told by some of my hedge fund and investment banking friends that Goldman deserved that money and that the entire counterparty structure related to almost every credit default swap was a risk.

But I like to point out that Goldman is only smarter than its peers because its trading desks are lighter on their feet. I remind them that Goldman stuffed the pipelines with toxic structured collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and then was nimble enough to cover themselves better by buying credit default swaps to hedge their exposure to their own toxic slime and institutions that are too-big-to-fail, exactly like AIG.

What happens now with Goldman Sachs will set the precedent for everything else that the government will do or allow in the future with bailout recipients and industries. Will Goldman be freed up to overpay its risk takers and to make greater wagers as it also seeks to become too-big-to-fail? Will impositions be made on the corporate level, industry level, systemic level? Will free markets be free to leverage taxpayers indefinitely?

The argument, most recently made in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal op-ed page by Jonathan Macey, a law professor at Yale, that “demonetizing executive pay will also drive the best managers out of private companies and into hedge funds and other boutique investment firms” implies that there is a limited amount of talent available in America, which is a supposition that I find myopic, at best.

Besides, aren’t these the same people that got us into this mess?

And while letting public companies be run by shareholders - as Macey suggests - is supposed to work in principle, shareholders have been marginalized by the same Wall Street system that protects the institutions whose stocks and bonds they sell, trade and profit from.

All eyes should be on the curious relationship between government and Goldman for clues as to what shape the landscape will take when we eventually exit this calamity.

I don’t want our companies, our institutions or our economy socialized any more than Adam Smith would. But I do want to see the public tail wagging the dogs of Wall Street and government.

This post can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

From Money Morning:

"I'd rather have this than gold." That's what one well-known fund manager recently told Barrons. Why? This special group of investments is set to pay out $4,201 guaranteed cash next month. And they pay out juicy cash sums all year long. But they're not income trusts, corporate bonds, or foreign bonds. In fact, only Martin Hutchinson is talking about them. Read his full report here...

Depression Looms Without More Stimulus

Do we really need more economic stimulus? We have already spent trillions of dollars attacking this financial crisis, and unfortunately we also have seen billions apparently wasted by poor policy decisions and implementation. All that aside, according to famed economist Robert Shiller, we need more economic stimulus or else we are likely facing another depression. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Robert Shiller says we need to continue with the monetary and fiscal policies we are pursuing, but both efforts need to be larger:

Depression Lurks Unless There’s More Stimulus, by Robert Shiller, Commentary, Bloomberg: In the Great Depression ... the U.S. government had a great deal of trouble maintaining its commitment to economic stimulus. “Pump- priming” was talked about and tried, but not consistently. The Depression could have been mostly prevented, but wasn’t. ...

In the face of a similar Depression-era psychology today, we are in need of massive pump-priming again. We appear to be in a much better situation due to the stronger efforts to date. Still, there is a danger that, because of a combination of faulty economic theory and inadequate appreciation of human psychology, as well as deep public anger, we will not continue with such stimulus on a high enough level. ...

In our analysis of the current economic crisis, we conclude that the government should have two targets. One would be a joint fiscal-monetary policy target. The same kind of expansionary policies embodied in the government expenditure stimulus and tax cuts that are already being tried have to be done on a big enough scale and for a long enough time in the future. ...

The government should also have a credit target. Once again, we are calling for more of the same kinds of existing policies... Achieving this requires new approaches, like those announced by the Bernanke Fed and the Obama administration, but on a continuing and even larger scale. ...

In this crisis, acceptance of these measures is being replaced with outrage. It is increasing the blood pressure of the public, and that can’t continue without damage to our system. ... It is time to face up to what needs to be done. The sticker shock involved will be large, but the costs in terms of lost output of not meeting either the credit target or the aggregate demand target will be yet larger.

It would be a shame if we are so overwhelmed by anger at the unfairness of it all that we do not take the positive measures needed to restore us to full employment. That would not just be unfair to the U.S. taxpayer. That would be unfair to those who are living in Hoovervilles...; it would be unfair to those who are being evicted from their homes, and can’t find new ones because they can’t find jobs. That would be unfair to those who have to drop out of school because they, or their parents, can’t find jobs.

It is now time to keep our eye on the ball and set clear targets to fix a system that broke when our animal spirits got out of bounds.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Protectionism And The Global Economy

Coordinating a global response to the financial crisis is proving increasingly difficult, and the growth of protectionism is not helping. The global economy is set to shrink for the first time since 1945, and shockingly enough 200 million additional people could be facing poverty. It is clear something needs to be done, but with so many voices, and so many agendas, what hope do we have? For more on this, read the following post from Mark Thoma.

Lots of worry about the global economy, the lack of an internationally coordinated policy response to the downturn, and about the imposition of protectionist measures. First, Joseph Stiglitz:

A globally coordinated stimulus package needed, by Joseph E Stiglitz, Project Syndicate: This year is likely to be the worst for the global economy since World War II... Unless something is done, the crisis will throw as many as 200mn additional people into poverty.

This global crisis requires a ... globally coordinated stimulus package... [W]hile it is recognized that almost all countries need to undertake stimulus measures (we’re all Keynesians now), many developing countries do not have the resources to do so. Nor do existing international lending institutions.

But if we are to avoid winding up in another debt crisis, some, perhaps much, of the money will have to be given in grants. And, in the past, assistance has been accompanied by extensive “conditions,” some of which enforced contractionary monetary and fiscal policies – just the opposite of what is needed now – and imposed financial deregulation, which was among the root causes of the crisis.

In many parts of the world, there is a strong stigma associated with going to the International Monetary Fund, for obvious reasons. ... It is thus imperative that assistance be provided through a variety of channels, in addition to, or instead of, the IMF...

At their November 2008 summit the G-20 leaders strongly condemned protectionism... Unfortunately,... 17 of the 20 countries have actually undertaken new protectionist measures, most notably the US with the “buy American” provision included in its stimulus package.

But it has long been recognised that subsidies can be just as destructive as tariffs – and even less fair, since rich countries can better afford them. If there was ever a level playing field in the global economy, it no longer exists: the massive subsidies and bailouts provided by the US have changed everything, perhaps irreversibly.

Indeed, even firms in advanced industrial countries that have not received a subsidy are at an unfair advantage. They can undertake risks that others cannot, knowing that if they fail, they may be bailed out. While one can understand the domestic political imperatives that have led to subsidies and guarantees, developed countries need to recognize the global consequences, and provide compensatory assistance to developing countries. ...

And the US dollar reserve-currency system – the backbone of the current global financial system – is fraying. China has expressed concerns, and the head of its central bank has joined the UN Commission in calling for a new global reserve system. ...

Such reforms will not occur overnight. But they will not occur ever unless work on them is begun now.

Next, Charles Wyplosz argues that, in general, quantitative easing is a "beggar-thy-neighbor" policy:

One fiscal initiative not worth emulating, by Charles Wyplosz, Project Syndicate: When the Swiss National Bank (SNB) recently brought its interest rate down to 0.25 percent, it announced that it would engage in “quantitative easing,”... More surprising was the simultaneous announcement that it was intervening on the foreign-exchange market with the aim of reversing the appreciation of the franc. Will this be the first salvo in a war of competitive devaluations? ...

Like most other central banks confronted with the recession, the SNB has reduced its policy interest rate all the way to the zero lower-bound. Once there, traditional monetary policy is impotent...

This is why central banks are now searching for new instruments. Quantitative easing represents one such attempt. ... However, an important issue is rarely mentioned: In small, open economies — a description that applies to almost every country except the US — the main channel of monetary policy is the exchange rate.

This channel is ignored for one good reason: Exchange-rate policies are fundamentally of the beggar-thy-neighbor variety. Unconventional policies that aim at weakening the exchange rate are technically possible even at zero interest rates, and they are quite likely to be effective ... by switching demand toward domestically produced goods and services.

The risk is that countries that suffer from the switch may retaliate and depreciate their currencies. That could easily trigger a return to the much-feared competitive depreciations that contributed to the Great Depression.

The first casualty would be whatever small scope remains for international policy coordination. The second would be the world international monetary system. In fact, one key reason for the creation of the IMF was to monitor exchange-rate developments with the explicit aim of preventing beggar-thy-neighbor policies. ...

Alternatively, it may be that the SNB mostly wishes to talk the franc down to break the safe-haven effect. Having promptly achieved depreciation, it may have succeeded. In that case, the franc will not move much more in any direction, and there will be no need for further interventions. ...

Other central banks have not expressed any view, which may suggest that they do not intend to retaliate, at least at this stage. ... It may also be that notice has been taken of the precedent, and that those authorities that intend to use it to justify future moves are loath to criticize it. In that case, the generalized silence could indicate that all other central banks entertain the possibility of using that option, which would be most worrisome.

And:

The worst of all worlds, by Joseph S. Nye, Project Syndicate: The world economy will shrink this year for the first time since 1945, and some economists worry that the current crisis could spell the beginning of the end of globalization. Hard economic times are correlated with protectionism... In the 1930s, such “beggar-thy-neighbor” policies worsened the situation. Unless political leaders resist such responses, the past could become the future.

Ironically, however, such a grim prospect would not mean the end of globalization, defined as the increase in worldwide networks of interdependence. Globalization has several dimensions, and though economists all too often portray it and the world economy as being one and the same, other forms of globalization also have significant effects — not all of them benign — on our daily lives.

The oldest form of globalization is environmental. For example,... Bubonic plague, or the Black Death, originated in Asia, but its spread killed a quarter to a third of Europe’s population in the 14th century. ... The spread of foreign species of flora and fauna to new areas has wiped out native species, and may result in economic losses of several hundred billion dollars per year. Global climate change will affect the lives of people everywhere. ... The rate at which the sea level rose in the last century was 10 times faster than the average rate over the last three millennia.

Then there is military globalization, consisting of networks of interdependence in which force, or the threat of force, is employed. ... Finally, social globalization consists in the spread of peoples, cultures, images and ideas. Migration is a concrete example. ...

The danger today is that shortsighted protectionist reactions to the economic crisis could help to choke off the economic globalization that has spread growth and raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past half century. But protectionism will not curb the other forms of globalization. ...

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

The Fed Is Running A "Laboratory Experiment" On What Drives Inflation

A former Fed governor says the Fed is basically running a laboratory experiment on what drives inflation. Of course that terminology probably doesn't sit well with most Americans, who are looking to the government to fix our economy, it is close to the truth. Beyond the laboratory experiment, though, there is a potentially bigger problem with the Fed. It is looking more and more like the Fed's independence is being squandered...again. There is a reason why the Fed was made independent, and it wasn't to succumb to every whim of the Federal government. For more on this, read the following article from Tim Iacono.

With growing optimism that the worst may now be behind it for the U.S. economy, a growing number of observers are starting to look at what sort of an economic landscape might take shape should the optimists be right, given all the money creation over the last year or so to bailout financial firms and effectively nationalize the mortgage lending industry.

According to Allan Meltzer, one of the world's foremost experts on U.S. monetary policy, the outlook is not good and it has much to do with the historical role of the Federal Reserve as an independent organization as described in this report at Bloomberg.

Meltzer says political pressure will prevent Bernanke, 55, and fellow policy makers from withdrawing liquidity quickly enough as the economy recovers. That’s similar to the pattern that occurred back in the 1970s, he says. Then-Chairman Arthur Burns allowed excessive money-supply growth because he was unable or unwilling to resist pressure from President Richard Nixon’s White House to hold down unemployment, leading to the “great inflation” of that era, he says.

Now, Bernanke and fellow policy makers have “squandered their independence” by becoming involved in bailouts of financial firms and by taking long-term and illiquid assets onto their balance sheet, Meltzer says. “They don’t have the political ability to control inflation.”

It really is too bad for the central bankers of the world that the labor market is a lagging indicator. During the latter stages of a recession, when other economic statistics begin pointing unambiguously upward, job losses generally continue at a healthy pace and this can make reining in easy money an exceedingly difficult task.

That's one of the most important reasons why the Federal Reserve was created as an independent organization - to do what's best for the economy in the long-term regardless of the political whims and wishes in Washington.

[Note: Yes, the most important reason for the Fed's independence is its unholy relationship with big New York banks, but that's an entirely different discussion.]

Anyway, with many now seeing "green shoots" all over the landscape, the inflation/deflation debate looks set to heat up once again, and Fed policy is right in the thick of things.

“All that money is going to find a home,” says Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics LLC in Pepper Pike, Ohio. He sees oil prices increasing to “$80, $90, $100 before the end of next year” from $52 a barrel now.

Commodity prices may be more prone to rise as the world economy recovers because tight credit and volatile pricing will discourage investment in new supplies, says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
...
Some Fed policy makers seem more worried about deflation than they do about inflation. A sustained fall in prices can debilitate the economy by causing consumers and businesses to postpone purchases.

“For some time to come, disinflation, and even deflation, will represent greater risks than inflation,” San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen said in a speech on March 25.

At the root of that concern is substantial and growing slack in the economy, which, according to White House chief economist Christina Romer, is operating 5 percent to 10 percent below potential. That means the economy will have to grow a percentage point above trend -- reckoned by the administration to be about 2.5 percent annually -- for five or more years before the slack is used up.

The Phillips curve -- developed by economist A.W. Phillips using Keynesian concepts -- posits that such excess will reduce inflation as firms stuck with idle capacity cut prices and workers facing layoffs accept smaller wage hikes.

Not everyone at the Fed buys into that argument. Noting that some economists forecast substantial slack will keep inflation low for several years, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker said in a March 26 speech that he would be “cautious about relying on this correlation.”

The Fed is “running a laboratory experiment” on what drives inflation: the money supply or the output gap, says Laurence Meyer, a former Fed governor and now vice chairman of St. Louis-based Macroeconomic Advisers

“How it turns out will do a lot to influence the economic debate,” he says, adding that his money is on Bernanke.

How it turns out will also do a lot to influence whether the Federal Reserve continues to exist in its current form and whether there are major revisions to current economic theory.

If the amount of inflation bears any resemblance to the size of recent asset bubbles or the volume of money printing deemed necessary to combat their bursting, there may be a wholesale rethinking of what a central bank is and what economists do.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Longing For The Days Of Boring Banking

When the financial industry gets too creative, bad things tend to happen. The current financial crisis was not the first example of this either. If you look all the way back to before the Great Depression, whenever the financial industry was loosely regulated, and overly creative, things would eventually blow up. Paul Krugman is calling for us to return to the days of boring banking, but wonders if that is going to happen anytime soon. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Does congress have the will to pursue serious financial reform?:

Making Banking Boring, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Thirty-plus years ago, when I was a graduate student in economics, only the least ambitious of my classmates sought careers in the financial world. Even then, investment banks paid more than teaching or public service — but not that much more, and anyway, everyone knew that banking was, well, boring.

In the years that followed, of course, banking became anything but boring. Wheeling and dealing flourished, and pay scales in finance shot up... And we were assured that our supersized financial sector was the key to prosperity. Instead, however, finance turned into the monster that ate the world economy. ...

Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef ... show that banking in America has gone through three eras over the past century. Before 1930, banking was an exciting industry featuring a number of larger-than-life figures, who built giant financial empires (some ... based on fraud). This highflying finance sector presided over a rapid increase in debt: Household debt as a percentage of G.D.P. almost doubled between World War I and 1929.

During this first era of high finance, bankers were, on average, paid much more than their counterparts in other industries. But finance lost its glamour when the banking system collapsed during the Great Depression.

The banking industry that emerged from that collapse was tightly regulated, far less colorful than it had been before the Depression, and far less lucrative.... Banking became boring, partly because bankers were so conservative about lending: Household debt ... stayed far below pre-1930s levels.

Strange to say, this era of boring banking was also an era of spectacular economic progress for most Americans.

After 1980, however, as the political winds shifted, many of the regulations on banks were lifted — and banking became exciting again. Debt began rising rapidly, eventually reaching just about the same level relative to G.D.P. as in 1929. And the financial industry exploded in size. By the middle of this decade, it accounted for a third of corporate profits.

As these changes took place, finance again became a high-paying career... Indeed, soaring incomes in finance played a large role in creating America’s second Gilded Age. Needless to say, the new superstars believed that they had earned their wealth. ... And many economists agreed.

Only a few people warned that this supercharged financial system might come to a bad end. Perhaps the most notable Cassandra was Raghuram Rajan... But other[s]..., including Lawrence Summers..., ridiculed Mr. Rajan’s concerns.

And the meltdown came.

Much of the seeming success of the financial industry has now been revealed as an illusion. ... Worse yet, the collapse of the financial house of cards has wreaked havoc with the rest of the economy, with world trade and industrial output actually falling faster than they did in the Great Depression. And the catastrophe has led to calls for much more regulation of the financial industry.

But my sense is that policy makers are still thinking mainly about rearranging the boxes on the bank supervisory organization chart. They’re not at all ready to do what needs to be done — which is to make banking boring again.

Part of the problem is that boring banking would mean poorer bankers, and the financial industry still has a lot of friends in high places. But it’s also a matter of ideology: Despite everything that has happened, most people in positions of power still associate fancy finance with economic progress.

Can they be persuaded otherwise? Will we find the will to pursue serious financial reform? If not, the current crisis won’t be a one-time event; it will be the shape of things to come.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Why Dropping "Mark to Market" Rules Won't Solve Anything

In an effort to shore up the balance sheets of banks the government decided to drop the "mark to market" rules that have been causing so much trouble in the financial industry. As Peter Schiff points out in his article, though, this won't solve anything. The rule was created in order to give investors a better idea of the true value of bank assets — basing the valuations on market activity rather than arbitrary assessments by the bank's accountants. Letting the banks decide how much their assets are worth, rather than the market, is a recipe for deception and ultimate failure. Read about what Schiff has to say in the article below from Money Morning.

When elementary school kids want to escape the confines of their circumstances, they pretend to be pirates, princesses and Jedi knights. Now, with the relaxation of "mark to market" valuation rules announced by the accounting trade’s self-regulatory body, our bankrupt financial institutions can escape their own reality by pretending to be solvent.

The unraveling of our fairytale economy over the last few months has not yet convinced us that the time has come to put away childish things. The applause that greeted the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) ruling on Wall Street is a clear sign that we still have some growing up to do.

The imaginative conceit that lies behind the accounting change is that the toxic assets polluting bank balance sheets are not really toxic at all. They are in fact highly valuable assets that for some irrational reason no one wants to buy.

Using the "mark to market" accounting method, mortgage-backed securities were valued relative to the latest prices fetched by the sale of similar assets on the open market. Currently, those bonds are being sold at deep discounts to their original value. By "marking" their unsold bonds down to those prices, the insolvency of our financial institutions had been laid bare. But the new accounting changes will allow the nervous owners to assign more "appropriate" (i.e. higher) values. Problem solved.

It is important to note that the FASB made its rule modifications only after both Washington and Wall Street applied intense pressure. In their heart of hearts, I can’t imagine that there are too many bean counters happy with the outcome.

The banks and the government have argued that the assets should be valued based solely on current cash flow. Most mortgages, after all, are not delinquent. Therefore, a few bad apples should not spoil the whole bunch, and those that are not yet delinquent should be valued at par. This method assumes we have no ability to look into the future and make assumptions about what is likely to happen, which is presumably what the market is already doing by valuing the assets lower than the banks wish.

All kinds of bonds (corporate, government and municipal, etc.) that are not in default frequently trade at discounts. In fact, the reason agencies such as Moody’s Corp. (MCO) and Standard & Poor’s rate bonds is to assess the probability of default. The higher that probability, the lower the value placed on the bonds, regardless of their current cash flow.

For example, General Motors Corp.’s (GM) 10-year bonds currently trade for only 8 to 10 cents on the dollar, despite the fact that GM is current on all interest payments. The 90% discount reflects investor awareness that GM will likely default long before the bonds mature. By the new logic, financial institutions with GM bonds on their balance sheets should be able to ignore the market and value these bonds at par.

Some argue that the comparison is invalid because GM’s bonds are liquid while mortgage-backed securities are not. However, if sellers of GM bonds were holding out for 70 or 80 cents on the dollar, those bonds would be illiquid too. The reason GM bonds are trading is that sellers are realistic.

The same should apply to bonds backed by mortgages. To assume that a 30-year, $500,000 mortgage on a house that has declined in value to $300,000 has a high probability of remaining current to maturity is ridiculous. The borrower could lose his job, his adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) might reset higher, or he may simply tire of paying an expensive mortgage for a house that is unlikely to be sold at a profit.

Any bond investor with half a brain will factor in these probabilities and look for deep discounts. The only way to accurately assess a real present value is to let the market discover the price.

Despite the pleas from bankers and politicians, mortgages are not plagued by a lack of liquidity but a lack of value. If sellers would be more negotiable, there would be plenty of liquidity. Who knows, at the right price I might even buy a few. The problem is that putting a market price on these assets would render most financial institutions insolvent, which is precisely why they do not want to let that happen.

Simply pretending that all these mortgages will be repaid does not solve the underlying problems. It may keep some banks alive longer, but when they ultimately do fail, the losses will be that much greater. In the meantime, solvent institutions are deprived of capital as more funds are funneled into insolvent "too big to fail" institutions - hiding their toxic assets behind rosy assumptions and phony marks.

Going from the sublime to the completely ridiculous, in a speech at the just-concluded Group 20 summit in London, President Barack Obama urged Americans not to let their fears crimp their spending. It would be unwise, he argued, for Americans to let the fear of job loss, lack of savings, unpaid bills, credit card debt or student loans deter them from making major purchases.

According to the president, "we must spend now as an investment for the future." So in this land of imagination (where subprime mortgages are valued at par), instead of saving for the future, we must spend for the future.

I guess Ben Franklin had it wrong too – apparently a penny spent is a penny earned.

This post can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

Mark-To-Market Rule Change Controversy

The new mark-to-market rule changes are very controversial. On one hand they have the potential to help stem some of the mounting losses being reported by financial institutions, but on the other hand there is the potential for some ambiguity in relation to the use of “judgment”. For more on this, read the following post from Mark Thoma.

John Berry likes the recent changes in the rules for valuing distressed assets:

Mark-to-Market Rule Gives More Clarity, Not Less, by John M. Berry, Commentary, Bloomberg: Mark-to-market accounting rules are being brought a little closer to economic reality -- accompanied by misplaced howls of outrage. ...[T]he standards have forced many financial institutions to overstate losses on trillions of dollars worth of assets, intensifying the global financial crisis.

Defenders of the rules say they protect bank investors and changing them will allow institutions to hide future losses. To the contrary, they have helped drive down the value of bank stocks, made shorting the shares much easier and caused bank stockholders to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in such companies as Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. ...

The problem with mark-to-market accounting is that it officially has presumed there’s a functioning market in whatever asset is being valued -- and that means a deal between a willing buyer and seller that isn’t being forced to sell. Actually, no such market exists for many mortgage-backed securities.

Nevertheless,... accountants have required many banks to calculate values based on distressed sale prices. That has meant large writedowns even on mortgage-backed securities that the institutions intend to hold to maturity.

Take the case of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta. Following the mark-to-market rules, it wrote down the value of its portfolio of mortgage-backed securities by $87.4 million in last year’s third quarter. Its actual projected loss on the securities: $44,000. For the fourth quarter the bank recorded a further $98.7 million loss on the securities.

That result makes no sense when the bank doesn’t trade such assets. ... A writedown might still be required under the changes FASB approved yesterday. Yet auditors can now use “significant professional judgment” when valuing illiquid securities. That’s what they should have been allowed to do all along. ...

The key points in this example are that almost all the mortgages involved are still performing and the bank plans to hold the securities to maturity -- and yet large writedowns were required. ...

Now accountants are supposed to use their judgment... That’s a big improvement over just using the last transaction price, as many auditors have been doing. ...

Here's an opposing view.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

An Alarming Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps

One in ten Americans are now receiving food stamps, and that number is set to increase. This should be shocking, but in reality it probably isn't considering the state of the economy. It is somewhat comforting to know that these people in need are getting food, but the problem is scary nonetheless. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

Wow, where do you go from here? Fifteen percent?

The Associated Press reports that more than 32 million Americans now sheepishly pull food stamps out of their purse or wallet in the checkout line and the bad news is that things are likely to get worse from here.

Given that labor markets are a lagging indicator, likely to get much worse before any net job creation begins, the number of food stamp recipients may go much higher this year.

Food stamps are the major U.S. antihunger program and help poor people buy groceries. The average benefit was $112.82 per person in January.

The January figure marks the third time in five months that enrollment set a record.

"A weakened economy means that many more individuals are turning to SNAP/Food Stamps," said the Food Research and Action Center, an antihunger group, using the acronym for the renamed food stamp program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Well, if the government can't do anything about the underlying causes of families not being able to put food on the table, at least they have a new "snappy" acronym.

Tomorrow's labor report is likely to provide a pretty good indication of whether they'll have to add another shift for the food stamp printing presses. If economic reports so far this week are any indication - new highs for weekly jobless claims and new lows for the ADP employment report - they might want to start placing some help wanted ads.

Food stamp enrollment rose in all but four of the 50 states during January, said Agriculture Department figures. Vermont, Alaska and South Dakota had increases of more than 5 percent. Texas had the largest enrollment, 2.984 million, down 65,000, followed by California at 2.545 million, up 43,000, and New York with 2.211 million, up 37,000.
Food stamp benefits get a temporary 13 percent increase, beginning with this month, under the economic stimulus law signed by President Barack Obama. The increase equals $80 a month for a household of four.

If those statistics and my math are both correct, benefits for a family of four go from a little over $600 a month to almost $700 a month.

You can actually buy a lot of groceries for that amount of money, particularly the high-calorie, processed variety.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Geithner's Bank Bailout Plan: Privatizing Gains And Socializing Losses

There is no shortage of opposition to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's new bank bailout plan, and while some arguments are unfounded, Joseph Stiglitz does make a good point. According to Stiglitz the worst part about the bailout plan is that it will privatize gains while socializing losses. With this in mind it makes it an overall losing proposition for taxpayers. In addition to this argument Stiglitz makes several others against the bailout plan in his article below as presented by Mark Thoma.

Joseph Stiglitz is not a fan of the Geithner bank bailout plan:

Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Commentary, NY Times: The Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks ... is based on letting the market determine the prices of the banks’ “toxic assets”... The reality, though, is that the market will not be pricing the toxic assets themselves, but options on those assets.

The two have little to do with each other. The government plan in effect involves insuring almost all losses. ... This is exactly the same as being given an option. ...

Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership! ...

But Americans are likely to lose even more ... because of an effect called adverse selection. The banks get to choose the loans and securities that they want to sell. They will want to sell the worst assets, and especially the assets ... the market ... is willing to pay too much for...But the market is likely to recognize this, which will drive down the price... Only the government’s picking up enough of the losses overcomes this “adverse selection” effect. ...

The main problem is not a lack of liquidity. ... The real issue is that the banks made bad loans... They have lost their capital, and this capital has to be replaced.

Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.

Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily “nationalize” the banks... What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. ...

So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.

But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high costs of the administration’s plan become apparent, confidence will be eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Profiting From Reflation: A Bet On Economic Recovery

I read an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal this morning that I thought I should share. There are a lot of people who have been making a great deal of money during this economic crisis by shorting the economy, or specifically betting that it would get worse. Many of these same traders are now making a different bet. They are betting that not only are these exorbitant stimulus measures going to stimulate the economy, but they are also going to lead to high inflation.

Right now the Federal Reserve is so concerned with preventing the dreaded D words (Deflation and Depression), that they are basically ignoring the threat of inflation. Once the economy gets going again, though, they are going to have to react incredibly fast in order to prevent a massive run up in inflation. Chances are the government will be slow to react, and if anything they prefer to error on the side of inflation — opposed to prolonging the recession.

What this means is that as the economy starts to recover those investments which typically do well in inflationary environments, stand to do very well. Commodities specifically have proven to be the investment of choice for many successful investors.

To read the full Wall Street Journal article click here.

America's Tarnished Reputation Threatens Global Response To Financial Crisis

One of the biggest casualties from the financial crisis — and our handling of it — has been the loss of America's reputation on financial matters. As far as most of the world can tell we are the ones who started this financial mess — which is enveloping much of the world — and even worse we have appeared incompetent to fix it. Why then would the rest of the world listen to us when we try to piece together an effective global response? As Paul Krugman points out in his recent article, America quite possibly could have lost one of its most valuable assets — its reputation — right when they — and the world — need it most. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

The financial crisis has damaged our global authority, credibility, and leadership, and that will make it much harder for the world to accomplish the essential task of coordinating a common response:

America the Tarnished, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Ten years ago the cover of Time magazine featured Robert Rubin,... Alan Greenspan,... and Lawrence Summers... Time dubbed the three “the committee to save the world,” crediting them with leading the global financial system through a crisis..., although it was a small blip compared with what we’re going through now.

All the men on that cover were Americans, but nobody considered that odd. After all, in 1999 the United States was the unquestioned leader of the global crisis response. ... The United States, everyone thought, was the country that knew how to do finance right.

How times have changed..., ... our claims of financial soundness — claims often invoked as we lectured other countries on the need to change their ways — have proved hollow.

Indeed, these days America is looking like the Bernie Madoff of economies: for many years it was held in respect, even awe, but it turns out to have been a fraud all along. ...

Simon Johnson..., who served as the chief economist at the IMF..., declares that America’s current difficulties are “shockingly reminiscent” of crises in places like Russia and Argentina — including the key role played by crony capitalists.

In America as in the third world, he writes, “elite business interests — financiers, in the case of the U.S. — played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive.”

It’s no wonder, then, that an article in yesterday’s Times about the response President Obama will receive in Europe was titled “English-Speaking Capitalism on Trial.”

Now, in fairness ... the United States was far from being the only nation in which banks ran wild. Many European leaders are still in denial about the continent’s economic and financial troubles, which arguably run as deep as our own... Still, it’s a fact that the crisis has cost America much of its credibility, and with it much of its ability to lead.

And that’s a very bad thing... I’ve been revisiting the Great Depression,... one thing that stands out ... is the extent to which the world’s response to crisis was crippled by the inability of the world’s major economies to cooperate.

The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: “All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don’t want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren’t.”

Yet that is exactly the situation we’re in. I don’t believe that even America’s economic efforts are adequate, but they’re far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week’s G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when — as in this case — the Americans are right.

The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America’s reputation, an asset we’ve lost just when we, and the world, need it most.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

The Toxic Asset Problem: In Layman's Terms

More and more people are starting to pay attention to the economy, and specifically the actions the government is taking to rectify it. One problem that many people are running into, though, is that things in the financial world are getting pretty complicated. We have these things called toxic assets that are destroying banks, but how did they get to be toxic? Furthermore why are they causing so many problems? When most Americans hear about the plans to fix the toxic asset problem, their heads are probably spinning. Economics professor Mark Thoma to the rescue. In his blog post below, Thoma does a great job of breaking the problem — and several of the proposed solutions — down into layman's terms using a car analogy.

Imagine a car lot that has 100 cars on it. However, some of these cars have problems. Half of them will have engine troubles that total the cars - the engines blow up and the cars are then worthless - and this will happen just after purchase. The other half are perfectly fine. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell prior to purchase which type of car you will get no matter how hard you try. Thus, half of the assets on the car dealer's "balance sheet" - the cars on its lot - are toxic, and lack of transparency makes it impossible to tell which ones are bad prior to purchase.

If all the cars were in perfect shape, they would sell for $20,000 each. Thus, there are (50)*($20,000) = $1,000,000 in assets on the books according to one way of doing the accounting, but that doesn't necessarily represent the true value of the cars on the lot.

The town where this dealership is located relies upon this business for jobs, it is essential, but, unfortunately, business has fallen off to nothing. Nobody is willing to risk losing $20,000 by purchasing a car that might die just after purchase, so the price has fallen. The expected value of a car is $10,000, but it's an all or nothing proposition, the car runs or it dies, and since people are risk averse nobody is wiling to pay the $10,000 expected value. In fact, the highest price they are willing to pay, $6,000, is lower than the minimum price the dealer is willing to accept (I've assumed a reservation price of $7,500 for illustration, and a horizontal supply curve to make the illustration easier):

So how could the government fix the problem?

1. Government purchases of toxic cars

The government could buy the cars itself, say at $7,500 per car, or $750,000 total for the lot, drive them around a bit (stress test them), wait for the bad ones to blow up, then sell the 50 good cars back to the public (who will no longer be fearful since the bad cars are out of the mix). If they can get anything more than $15,000 for each good car, they will make money on the deal (well, there would be overhead and other costs to cover, but let's abstract from minor details). But if cars end up selling for less than $15,000, they will take a loss.

(In the graph, the government intervention shifts the demand curve outward until it intersects at the kink in the supply curve at Q=100).

The problem with this option is knowing what price to offer for the cars. There is no market, and the firm's reservation price may be too high, i.e. paying the reservation price will eventually lead to a loss. And it's worse. In this example the percentage of bad cars is known, but the percentage of bad cars would also be unknown in a more realistic example, so there's no way to know how many good cars there are for sure, and what price they will sell for after the defective cars have been culled out of the herd. If the government pays $7,500 per car, and more than 62.5% of them go bad (not that much more than the 50% estimate), then taxpayers will lose money even if they sell for $20,000. With the percentage unknown, there's no way to know for sure what the breakeven price will be.

This is, in essence, the original Paulson plan. The only twist is that the price - the $7,500 in the example above, would be determined by an auction among many dealers with the government accepting the lowest bid (which could be $7,500 in this example since that is the price the firm is willing to accept). As you can see by thinking this through, there are questions about what price such an auction would reveal.

One danger in this plan is that if you overpay for the cars, e.g. give $7,500 when the breakeven price was, say, actually $5,000, then you have given the owner of the car lot $250,000 more than the cars were actually worth (this will be the loss to taxpayers). The dealer may need this money to stay solvent and stay in business, but, nevertheless, it is a windfall.

There are a lot of uncertainties here, and lots of ways to lose money. But it's possible to make money too.

2. Subsidies and Public-Private partnerships

Here, the government offers a subsidy to private sector buyers. Suppose that the demand curve intersects the vertical line in the graph (at Q=100) at a price of $4,000. Then in order to sell 100 cars, the government must subsidize buyers by $3,500 so that the $4,000 offer is raised to the $7,500 the firm is willing to accept (notice that the buyer willing to pay $6,000 gets a $2,000 windfall, so, except at the margin, this plan gives surplus to people purchasing the assets - as with the first plan, this shifts the demand curve out until it intersects at the kink in the supply curve).

However, once again, the government will not know if it is getting this right or not. Suppose it offers a $1,000 subsidy thinking that is generous enough. In this example, that won't bridge the gap between the highest offer of $6,000, and the reservation price of $7,500. Thus, the subsidy would be too small to restart the market and the plan would fail. So the answer is to make the subsidy large enough to encourage buyers, but the problem is that if it is too large, the government will be giving money away unnecessarily.

And there's another problem. If there's a large gap between what people are willing to pay and what dealers are willing to accept(the gap between $6,000 and $7,500 in the example), this would be problematic politically since it would require subsidies that are unacceptably large.

And I should note that it doesn't have to be a subsidy. That's one way to do this - as a giveaway - but another way is through a no recourse loan (what is being called a partnership). Suppose that the government gives (up to) a $3,500 loan to a private sector buyer to purchase the car for $7,500. If it's a good car and the value rises above $7,500, say to $15,000, then government will get paid back (with interest) since the asset can be sold profitably (another option is for the government to demand a share of this profit through warrants or other means). But if it's a bad car, the price falls to zero and the loan is forgiven - it does not need to be repaid. So the private sector agents only have to put up a fraction of the price to control the asset, and their losses are limited to the amount they put up while the gains are potentially large.

This is, in essence, the Geithner Plan. If many of the loans are not repaid, or if the subsidy is too large, it could lose a lot of money, but it could also make money too.

3. Nationalization

Now for the Saab story. Another option is for the government to simply take over the car dealership. The dealership is essential to the economy of the town, without it people will struggle, and the government - for that reason - might consider temporarily taking over the dealership to prevent failure. In doing so, it would make an evaluation of the company's assets, pay off the people who loaned the business money up to this amount, which may require having them take a haircut, i.e. accept some percentage of what they are owed on the bad loans they made, and the owner would simply be wiped out (which is a benefit since the business is insolvent and this allows the owner to escape the loans that cannot be paid through liquidation).

After taking over, the government would stress test the cars it now owns, put the bad ones in the junk pile, and sell the rest back to the public. So long as it didn't pay the creditors too much when it took over, i.e. the haircut is sufficiently large, it ought to make money on the deal. But it could lose money here too.

The Point

But, and I want to stress this, the point of these plans is not to make money, the point is to keep the economy of the town going, to keep people employed. If people place a large value on security, then even if the government takes a loss on paper, it may not be an economic loss. That is, we must put a value on the jobs that are saved and the security it brings (simply imagine that the utility function has risk as one of its arguments - by lowering the risk of job loss and the associated household disruption, you have made the agent better off, and this must be counted against any loss from any of the programs above). There is value in economic stability and security over and above whatever the government makes (or loses) on the actual financial transactions, and this must be factored into the evaluation of the policy.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Fed Ups Balance Sheet $1.2 Trillion: Irresponsible, Or Just What The Economy Needs?

With the recent announcement that the Federal Reserve plans to buy up $1.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and other financial instruments, there has been a economic divide created. On one side Americans will benefit from reduced mortgage rates, however, opponents to the decision argue that this will lead to major inflation and devalue the savings of responsible Americans. It seems that anyone "responsible" is getting victimized in all these stimulus measures. Furthermore there is always the worry that the foreign buyers of our debt will be turned off by our actions and decide to stop buying these assets, or even worse sell off what they already own. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tony Straka.

Word has probably spread around by now that the Federal Reserve is going to buy everything in America that's not nailed down, throwing another $1,150,000,000,000 lifeline at markets. (Click here to see what a trillion looks like.)

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) yesterday informed the public that it will expand its dominating position in the MBS market, throwing an additional $750 billion there. The buying spree does not end there. Having arrived at zero interest rate policy 3 months earlier the Fed now hopes to control interest rates by monetizing US Treasuries equalling $300 billion. Stirring still more Bourbon in the punch bowl the Fed will also up its portfolio of agency debt by another $100 billion.

Markets rallied on the news with Treasuries shedding up to 51 basis points. Gold outshone everything and spurted more than $50 on the FOMC's news that will ultimately lead to higher inflation rates despite the FOMC statement that said,

In light of increasing economic slack here and abroad, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued.

Surprisingly chairman Ben Bernanke and his troops are more worried about possible deflation despite the Fed's balloning balance sheet that will pass the $3 trillion mark this year.

Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term.

Latest CPI figures show a different picture. Inflation rose to 0.5% (January: 0,4%) or 6% annualized in February.

GRAPH: Gold reacted with the biggest jump seen in decades, rising more than $50 after the Fed released more measures that are designed to fuel monetary inflation. Chart courtesy of kitco.com

Economists were up in arms about the Fed's measures. Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital said via the WSJ blogs:

The agency MBS market is close to $4 trillion, so the Fed will end up owning almost one-third of the agency mortgage market. If this was a “rigged market” (to quote one of my learned colleagues on the mortgage desk) before, what should we call it now?! … $50 billion per month in Treasuries pales in comparison to new supply. Just to flesh that point out, we project that auctions of 2’s, 3’s, 5’s, 7’s, and 10’s will total $150 billion in March. In essence, even if all the purchases are limited to 2’s to 10’s, the Fed’s program will merely be a third of the new supply (and far short of one-third of the total market, as is the case for agency MBS).

Morgan Stanleys David Greenlaw said,

Even with energy prices having flattened The Fed’s Treasury purchases will absorb a very significant portion of the amount of gross issuance that we anticipate to occur over the next six months… The Fed’s announcement signals a clear intent to continue to drive mortgage rates lower and we expect them to meet this objective. This could represent a powerful source of stimulus for the household sector of the economy. In 2008, the average mortgage rate on the outstanding stock of loans was about 6.50%. So, if the Fed brings 30-yr fixed rate mortgages down to 4.50% and all homeowners are able refi, the aggregate permanent cash flow savings would be on the order of $200 billion per year.

Bloomberg summed it up in the lead of their coverage:

By committing to buy Treasuries and double his purchases of mortgage debt, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled his determination to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression and his willingness to pump as much cash into the economy as needed to end the current crisis.

I conclude nothing has changed in the Fed's perception that new fiat money will also solve this crisis. Taking gold's reaction as the canary in the coal mine markets will recognize that the Fed is on the way towards hyper inflation. As in the Weimar republic the US central bank spins up the presses to monetize the debt. At the end of the Weimar republic one percent of government income came from taxes and 99% came fresh from the printing presses.

President Barack Obama may have no other choice than to take this route as foreign investors grow wary about the capability of the USA to serve its debts and we may see less participation in Treasury auctions also for the reason that sovereign wealth funds will spend a bigger portion domestically as nearly every nation is confronted with the economic downturn. For the time being gold investments may turn out again to be the safest asset to hold.

UPDATE: Mint.com says one trillion greenbacks could fund an inflation-adjusted New Deal twice over. Check out their way of visualizing what one trillion can buy and be in for a dose of reality.

I especially liked this one. Do you still say this crisis is manageable? Illustration courtesy of Mint.com.

This post can also be viewed on prudentinvestor.blogspot.com.

We Avoided Deflation Again: Soon Inflation Could Be Problem

The latest CPI reports showed that we once again avoided the dreaded "D" word — deflation. But as James Picerno points out while we are worried about deflation now, at some point here we are going to have to unwind all the policies that have been enacted to boost the economy. Since policy makers tend to be a little behind on the unwinding side in all likelihood we will experience hefty inflationary pressure before things balance out again. So while we are worried about deflation now, soon our concern needs to move to controlling inflation off the backend. For more on this, read the blog post below from James Picerno.

Today’s report on consumer price inflation (CPI) for February confirms yesterday’s news on wholesale prices for last month: deflation is on the run. For the moment, anyway.

That’s good news, but if it’s true, then monetary policy becomes increasingly tricky in the months ahead. We say if it’s true because it’s hard to make definitive conclusions on just a few months of data. At the moment, the case for arguing that deflation has been banished rests on January and February numbers. Deciding if that’s a trend with legs remains speculative, albeit less so than in the past several months. Only once it's clear that the economy is past its worst point in the current downturn will it be obvious that deflation is no longer a threat. Where and when that point lies, alas, isn't yet obvious, at least to this observer.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department reports this morning that consumer prices rose 0.4% last month on a seasonally adjusted basis. That’s up from January’s 0.3% and both numbers stand in sharp contrast to the previous three months (Oct through Dec), when CPI dropped sharply.

Core inflation (excluding food and energy) was up 0.2%, as it was in January, suggesting that overall prices, as defined by the Federal Reserve, are more or less stable. For the year through February, core CPI advanced 1.8%, roughly in line with where the Fed would like to see it remain through time.

Does this mean the all-clear sign for deflation worries is past? Perhaps, but it’s still too soon to say. There was never any doubt that a determined central bank can engineer inflation. Indeed, that’s the natural order of economic behavior and many a central bank has unwittingly fostered higher inflation without necessarily trying. The fact that the Fed has been working over time to generate higher inflation as an antidote to elevated deflationary risks should surprise no one when the effort bears fruit.

One clue that the reflation efforts are more than noise comes by noting that CPI’s major subcategories all posted higher prices last month save for food and beverages. The same was true for January, a month when food prices climbed as well. That’s a big and productive shift from 2008’s fourth quarter, when price declines were running hard. At the time, the fear was that the negative price momentum would build a head of steam and, left unchecked, would develop into sustained deflation.

As we write, there’s reason to think the Fed’s policy of nipping deflation in the bud is working. Is it time to pull the plug on the massive liquidity injections? No, not yet. There's still a strong, negative headwind blowing in the economy, starting with the labor market. Until we learn more about how the current business cycle is unfolding, the case for keeping Fed funds just above zero is compelling. One metric to watch closely in the coming weeks is initial jobless claims, which is one of several critical components for estimating the current state of the business cycle, as we’ve discussed.

Meantime, Bernanke and company begin their two-day gab fest today at the Fed. As we write, the Fed funds futures market is expecting more of the same: leaving the Fed funds rate unchanged at just over zero. For the moment, that’s prudent, but it may not be so for much longer. When it’s clear that deflation is no longer a clear and present danger, it’ll be time to start raising interest rates to keep the inflationary medicine from bubbling over down the road. That’s not going to be easy in an economy that, even in the best of scenarios, is likely to be struggling for the foreseeable future.

In short, we may be nearing the end of the heightened risk for deflation. That suggests that a new era for monetary policy is coming, and it promises to be a difficult one, which is to say that the risk of error will be quite high. As inflationary pressures return, albeit slowly and tenuously, the central bank will have to navigate a fine line of keeping prices under control without creating excessive drag for economic growth. The previous run of monetary policy decisions look like child’s play by comparison.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Does Obama Deserve An "F" Grade For His Economic Policies?

There has been a lot of criticism lately of President Obama's economic policies, but are they really so bad to deserve the "F" grade recently given to them by the Wall Street Journal? Obviously a good deal of economists think so, but economics professor Mark Thoma has a different view. For more on this, read the following post from Mark Thoma.

I was asked about the grade of "F" the WSJ gave to the economic policies of Obama and Geithner:

Grading Obama on the economy, by Mark Thoma, Comment is Free, UK Guardian: Obama hasn't received high marks for his handling of the financial crisis. Does he deserve a failing grade?

The Obama administration's economic policies received a low average rating from 54 economists participating in a recent poll appearing in the Wall Street Journal, low enough to allow the paper to award an "F" grade to the president and US Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner. (Ben Bernanke fared a bit better.)

However, there was considerable variation across the 54 responses, perhaps because the question was too broad. In particular, when assessing the administration's policy successes or failures to date, it's important to separate the stimulus package from the bailout package, and to separate the economics from the politics.

Though they are often confused, the stimulus package is intended to jump-start the economy and is largely independent of Geithner and the Treasury, while the bailout policies are directed at repairing the financial sector and are, to a large extent, a direct product of the Treasury's efforts.

The economic policies underlying the stimulus package do not, in my opinion, deserve a failing grade, or anything close to that. The policies the administration would have liked to have implemented were based upon solid principles. But I was disappointed with the actual legislation.

The problem was the politics, not the economics. The administration did not get out in front and dominate the political message. Instead, the framing was left to the opposition, and that forced compromises in the stimulus legislation that limited its potential effectiveness, perhaps to the point of falling below the critical threshold needed to get the economy moving.

For example, the bill that actually emerged slanted too much toward tax cuts that are likely to be saved rather than spent, thus reducing the impact on aggregate demand. There was not enough help for state and local governments, and there was not enough help for struggling households who have taken big balance sheet and employment hits as the crisis has unfolded. So while I would give the policy design decent marks, the actual implementation has fallen short, largely due to a tendency to compromise instead of taking control of the political battlefield.

The financial bailout suffers from a similar problem, but here the economics have been problematic as well. The plan has been slow to develop, and does not seem to recognise the nature of the problem. However, this may be due to fear of the politics associated with nationalisation rather than a lack of understanding of the problem and then potential solutions to it. Or it could be from a genuine belief that nationalisation ought to be a last resort.

But all of the false steps, the hesitation, the lack of a firm commitment to a particular course of action look to me like they have been driven by a desire to find some way, any way, of avoiding the political consequences of doing what they know needs to be done in their heart of hearts: take temporary control of the banks, separate the good assets from the bad, recapitalise the banks as necessary, then sell the reconstituted banks back to the private sector.

But instead of leading the political argument, they have allowed the opposition to dominate the political landscape and that has forced the administration's hand in terms of the policies they are able to pursue. In the case of the financial sector, it's time to stop hoping that muddling along until the economy recovers will somehow solve the problem, and to get out in front and lead. As for the stimulus package, the message is the same. Given that the first package may not be enough due to the lack of a proper political foundation, and therefore that a second round may be needed, it would be helpful to begin paving the political path forward here as well.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Nice...AIG Is Paying $165 Million To The People That Ruined The Company

What is going on over at AIG? The latest fiasco coming from AIG is the news that $165 million in bonuses are scheduled to be paid out to the financial products unit. Oh, one other thing, that is the unit that basically bankrupted the company. How on earth are these people still even working for the company, let alone getting bonuses? Typically when someone screws up that much they get fired, not rewarded. Meanwhile the American public is left completely baffled at the situation. So far we have given AIG about $170 billion, — which kept the company in business — and now AIG is telling us that we have to allocate $165 million of this tax payer money to give to the people who caused us to have to pony up the $170 billion to begin with? I know they have some contract things in place and all, but as Laura Wilson from Information Security Resources points out in her blog post below, I'm sure there is a way for us to get around that contract considering the situation. Oh yeah, here is a thought too: how about we FIRE some of these people! There are a lot of good financial people looking for jobs right now, and a little shake up over there might not be such a bad thing.

The plaint that credit default swap-promulgating AIG (AIG) is contractually obligated to pay out millions in bonuses to the same pitted brass that led the company, the industry, and the entire economy off a cliff is a bunch of horse hooey.

If you are on the management team of a company that lays off workers, can’t pay its bills, leaves shareholders holding nothing, and has to take public bailouts, it’s your damn job to make a deal to restructure that company, or wind it down responsibly.

Your bonus is getting to keep porking up to the paycheck trough while other workers are losing salary, severance, and health care.

New York Times: The payments to A.I.G.’s financial products unit are in addition to $121 million in previously scheduled bonuses for the company’s senior executives and 6,400 employees across the sprawling corporation. Mr. Geithner last week pressured A.I.G. to cut the $9.6 million going to the top 50 executives in half and tie the rest to performance.

The payment of so much money at a company at the heart of the financial collapse that sent the broader economy into a tailspin almost certainly will fuel a popular backlash against the government’s efforts to prop up Wall Street. Past bonuses already have prompted President Obama and Congress to impose tough rules on corporate executive compensation at firms bailed out with taxpayer money.

A.I.G., nearly 80 percent of which is now owned by the government, defended its bonuses, arguing that they were promised last year before the crisis and cannot be legally canceled. In a letter to Mr. Geithner, Edward M. Liddy, the government-appointed chairman of A.I.G., said at least some bonuses were needed to keep the most skilled executives.

I sure would like to see those AIG contracts - I’ll bet I can poke a hole in the specious supposition that the company really, really wants to do the right thing, but its little hands are tied. Since the public bailout of AIG, we all have an ownership interest in where the money is going, and are entitled to ask probing questions.

New York Times: “We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he wrote Mr. Geithner on Saturday.

Still, Mr. Liddy seemed stung by his talk with Mr. Geithner, calling their conversation last Wednesday “a difficult one for me,” and noting that he receives no bonus himself.

“Needless to say, in the current circumstances,” Mr. Liddy wrote, “I do not like these arrangements and find it distasteful and difficult to recommend to you that we must proceed with them.”

I know contracts inside and out, at the real-world, down and dirty level, not the black-box, ivory tower, theoretical stratum that gets adjusted as the tectonic plates of business deals crash into each other.

Although I have chosen not to practice law anymore, I am really good at understanding the terms of these agreements, and evaluating when it would appropriate to reward corporate players for their performance.

And, when it is not.

New York Times: Of all the financial institutions that have been propped up by taxpayer dollars, none has received more money than AIG, and none has infuriated lawmakers (and Ben Bernanke per 60 Minutes) more, with practices that policy makers have called “reckless”

The bonuses will be paid to executives at A.I.G.’s financial products division, the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bonds which were backed in many cases by subprime mortgages.

The bonus plan covers 400 employees, and the bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $6.5 million. Seven executives at the financial products unit were entitled to receive more than $3 million in bonuses.

Any attorney who advises that these bonuses are appropriate ought to have his or her head checked.

Base salary, maybe, if not outrageous. No bonus. No severance unless everybody else also received proportionate assistance. Don’t care what the contract says - attack it in bankruptcy or wind down - I saw it many times in the Silicon Valley meltdown.

But the official also said the administration will force A.I.G. to eventually repay the cost of the bonuses to the taxpayers as part of the agreement with the firm, which is being restructured.

AIG’s main business is insurance, but the financial products unit sold hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of derivatives, the notorious credit-default swaps that nearly toppled the entire company last fall. AIG had set up a special bonus pool for the financial products unit early in 2008, before the company’s near collapse, and when problems stemming from the mortgage crisis were just becoming clear.

There were concerns that some of the best-informed derivatives specialists might leave.the company. AIG then locked in $450 million for the financial products unit, and prepared to pay it in a series of installments to encourage people to stay.

This poignant issue is near and dear to me, as I have shut down management bonuses before, even when I would have received some of that money, and even when I really needed it.

I also have been lucky enough to work with one of the premier corporate governance experts in the country and with a bankruptcy and wind down expert whom I hope will end up on the federal bench.

In the past, I have known both of these gentlemen to express support for my assertion that it is appalling for a destitute company to pay out management and deal bonuses to the team that took the company under.

New York Times: A.I.G.’s main business is insurance, but the financial products unit sold hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of derivatives, the notorious credit-default swaps that nearly toppled the entire company last fall.

Under a deal reached last week, A.I.G. agreed that the top 50 executives would get half of the $9.6 million they were supposed to get by March 15. The second half of their bonuses would be paid out in two installments in July and in September. To get those payments, Treasury officials said, A.I.G. would have to show that it had made progress toward its goal of selling off business units and repaying the government.

Nice. You just keep holding that moral compass you got there, guys.

Laura is a business consultant and an advocate for information security, consumer protection, long-term shareholder value, and better management decisions. Her specialty is finding and fixing risks and threats to sensitive data. Her experience includes international banking, credit card, and mortgage companies, venture capital portfolio companies, and software and technology providers. She practiced law in Silicon Valley during the tech boom and meltdown, handling corporate governance and information protection.

This post can also be viewed on yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com.

China Beginning To Use Monetary Leverage On U.S.

While the U.S. has racked up trillions in debt, China has been buying up this U.S. debt. Now China owns more U.S. debt than any other country on the planet, and of course with that comes a great deal of political power over the U.S. China owns so much of our debt that if they were to start selling it off in mass quantity it could collapse our entire financial system. China has not said that they have any intention of doing so, nor would it be financially wise for them to, however, the threat alone carries a lot of weight. One of Obama's campaign claims was that he intended to fight China's monetary manipulation, but with little surprise — after urging from China — the U.S. backed down. Now China is urging the U.S. to be more prudent with their stimulus spending — in order to protect the value of their investment. Kathy Lien dives more into this story in her blog post below.

According to the latest data from Treasury, foreign investors were net sellers of U.S. dollars. The Madoff scandal led to a tremendous amount of liquidation by hedge funds in the Caribbean and Luxembourg but we have our eye on China. The Asian Giant continues to be a net buyer of dollar denominated investments, albeit at an increasingly sluggish pace. For the third month in a row, China has slowed their purchase of U.S. dollars. There are many reasons why their demand for dollars is waning, but don’t expect them to become net sellers of U.S. dollars anytime soon ahead of the Treasury’s report on Currency Manipulation next month.

With a month to go before the report is due for release, China is flexing their muscles. This weekend, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao signaled to the U.S. that they are fully aware of the power they have on the U.S. economy and how the U.S. needs China just as much as China needs the U.S. He said that “we lent such huge funds to the United States, and of course we’re concerned about the security of our assets.” If China decided that U.S. investments are no longer safe, their liquidation would drive yields significantly higher and stocks significantly lower. The consequences of infuriating China are severe because they have the power to retaliate.

China’s continual accumulation of U.S. Treasuries is also political. With a growing U.S. deficit, there are much better ways for China to spend their money such as investing in resource companies. The sharp decline in Chinese exports also automatically reduce their need to weaken the Yuan by buying U.S. dollars. However for political reasons, the Feb and March TIC data should continue to report that China is a net buyer of U.S. dollars.

CNBC VIDEO: Is US Debt Still Desirable to China?

This post can also be viewed on KathyLien.com.

The Most Indebted Countries By Percentage Of GDP

When you take a look at the list of the most indebted countries, you would assume that the U.S. would be tops on the list. That would certainly be the case if you just looked at the total amount owed, however, a better measurement of a country's debt load is to compare it to their GDP. When you do that the U.S. still looks bad, but we are no where near as bad as Japan — who runs away with the top spot. Kathy Lien looks at these numbers, and discusses some possible implications, in her blog post below.

The Economist has a great image on which countries have the most debt as a percentage of GDP. Japan tops the list followed by Italy and the United States. Japan actually has 2x more debt than the U.S. which I find particularly scary and leads me to wonder if Japan could face a ratings downgrade.

Source: Economist

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Switzerland Cuts Interest Rates: Swiss Franc To Fall Hard

Switzerland has decided to match the U.S. Central Bank's near zero interest rate policy and as a result the Swiss Franc is set to take a beating. Currency expert Kathy Lien explains the impact of Switzerland's decision on their currency, and even throws out some potentially profitable trades for currency investors in her blog post below:

Switzerland has officially adopted a beggar thy neighbor policy approach by intervening in the currency market. This morning, they cut interest rates by 25bp to 0.25 percent matching U.S. levels. They have officially embarked on Quantitative easing and will be buying domestic and foreign bonds (fully synopsis of SNB rate decision) .

Source: FX360.com

For currency traders, this means that a BIG seller of Swiss Francs have just entered the market. They have deep pockets and will probably be in the market for a while. Therefore, expect more losses in EUR/CHF and USD/CHF, both of which have hit 2 month highs. Such a strong move begs a correction but ultimately, I believe that EUR/CHF will hit 1.55 and USD/CHF will break 1.20.

The US retail sales report was much stronger than the market expected and this should add to the gains in USD/CHF, which has already outperformed EUR/CHF this morning.

There are still unanswered questions such as how much Swiss Franc the SNB will sell, the scale of bond purchases and additional liquidity. Their announcement today is aimed at accomplishing 2 goals at their expense of their neighbors which is protect their export sector and prevent the economy from falling into a deflation trap.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Do You Believe Alan Greenspan?

Former Federal Reserve chief, Alan Greenspan, is towards the top of most people's lists for who had the biggest part in the creation of the current financial crisis. Ask Greenspan, though, and he'll tell you that he had nothing to do with it. Tim Iacono calls Greenspan out on this claim, and takes a deeper look into the origin of the financial crisis in his blog post below.

On the same day that his successor signaled dramatic policy changes that would see the Federal Reserve "take away the punchbowl" before inflating yet another asset bubble, radically altering the way financial market regulators operate in the process, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was readying yet another in a long series of op-ed pieces aimed at defending his legacy.

He didn't cause the housing bubble, or so he says.

After yesterday's commentary by David Leonhardt at the New York Times about how the central bank had been played like a fiddle by big financial firms who took on "excessive risk" knowing that the government would be there to bail them out, you'd have thought that maybe there would be some reluctance to go forward with the editorial.

Apparently not.

Still seemingly unfamiliar with the concept of "moral hazard" where, in the words of Mr. Leonhardt, big firms can "act as if their future losses are indeed somebody else’s problem", and having only confessed to being "shocked" last year after finding a flaw in his ideological framework about how "self-interest" works in the real world, the opinion piece made it into the Wall Street Journal this morning.

Alan Greenspan still hasn't got a clue.

After a long period of relative silence since the wheels fell off the global economy last fall and as his critics grew in number, his name often cited in public opinion polls as "the one individual" most responsible for the current mess (this term, admittedly, now failing to adequately describe the extent of the problems the world now faces), his defense has become defiant, if not desperate, the most recent example being provided today:

The Fed Didn't Cause the Housing Bubble
Any new regulations should help direct savings toward productive investments.
By ALAN GREENSPAN

We are in the midst of a global crisis that will unquestionably rank as the most virulent since the 1930s. It will eventually subside and pass into history. But how the interacting and reinforcing causes and effects of this severe contraction are interpreted will shape the reconfiguration of our currently disabled global financial system.
There are at least two broad and competing explanations of the origins of this crisis. The first is that the "easy money" policies of the Federal Reserve produced the U.S. housing bubble that is at the core of today's financial mess.

The second, and far more credible, explanation agrees that it was indeed lower interest rates that spawned the speculative euphoria. However, the interest rate that mattered was not the federal-funds rate, but the rate on long-term, fixed-rate mortgages.

Not surprisingly, the "easy money" thesis is dismissed out of hand - there is nothing further about fostering a culture of debt or being overly accommodating to the slightest of financial market stumbles over a period of almost two decades, all of which surely contributed to the prevailing attitudes and conventional wisdom of just a few years ago.

Having dispensed with that, it is on to the now-familiar, "I was powerless to do anything about long-term rates" retort, as if long-term rates really played a key role in the housing bubble during its bubbliest years.

With prices having risen to nosebleed levels during the middle of the decade, who could afford to buy a house with a 30-year fixed loan?

It was the tsunami of "innovation" in financial products - Pay Option ARMs, "liar loans", MBSs, CDOs, and CDSs - all of which were blessed by the central bank, that caused nearly all the damage, not 30-year fixed mortgages.

Next comes the "savings glut" rationale for why long-term rates were such a conundrum followed by the now-familiar, "our housing bubble was just average" angle:

That ex ante excess of savings propelled global long-term interest rates progressively lower between early 2000 and 2005.

That decline in long-term interest rates across a wide spectrum of countries statistically explains, and is the most likely major cause of, real-estate capitalization rates that declined and converged across the globe, resulting in the global housing price bubble. (The U.S. price bubble was at, or below, the median according to the International Monetary Fund.)

What follows is a rebuke of Stanford University Professor John Taylor' revisionist history (apparently, it takes one to know one) in which short-term interest rates were cited as the proximal cause for the current meltdown.

And after that, it's always handy to cite glowing criticism from someone who died back in 2006, before it became widely known just how bad things would get.

Given the decoupling of monetary policy from long-term mortgage rates, accelerating the path of monetary tightening that the Fed pursued in 2004-2005 could not have "prevented" the housing bubble. All things considered, I personally prefer Milton Friedman's performance appraisal of the Federal Reserve. In evaluating the period of 1987 to 2005, he wrote on this page in early 2006: "There is no other period of comparable length in which the Federal Reserve System has performed so well. It is more than a difference of degree; it approaches a difference of kind."

That's just pathetic when you think about it...

Even after the recent admonishment from the late Milton Friedman's long-time partner Anna Schwartz as documented in "A 92-year old finger pointed squarely at the Fed", he has the chutzpah to cite favorable words from 2006.

Lastly, the question of regulation and the lack of sophistication.

It is now very clear that the levels of complexity to which market practitioners at the height of their euphoria tried to push risk-management techniques and products were too much for even the most sophisticated market players to handle properly and prudently.

However, the appropriate policy response is not to bridle financial intermediation with heavy regulation. That would stifle important advances in finance that enhance standards of living.

Before getting to the big finale, it's worth noting that the book has not yet been written on these "enhanced standards of living". It seems that standards of living in most of the world, particularly in the U.S., are one big moving target right now, a target that is generally moving in the downward direction.

Come to think of it, "enhanced" is clearly not the right word choice here - it is premature at best and, at worst, it is a sad, almost mocking commentary on the rapidly changing lives of the vast majority of people in the world.

And, in conclusion...

If we are to retain a dynamic world economy capable of producing prosperity and future sustainable growth, we cannot rely on governments to intermediate saving and investment flows. Our challenge in the months ahead will be to install a regulatory regime that will ensure responsible risk management on the part of financial institutions, while encouraging them to continue taking the risks necessary and inherent in any successful market economy.

Maybe what the smartest economists in the world thought was "sustainable growth" wasn't sustainable at all and all that "risk taking" was just a way for bankers to enrich themselves.

People are beginning to sour on the whole idea of "prosperity", that is, if the current economic and financial market tumult is part of the package.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Misguided Optimism From The White House

While the White House seems to be in a cheery mood about the future of the economy, you might want to hold off your enthusiasm. As Tim Duy points out, the economic data being released is in no way positive — and of course the administration fresh off the passing of their new stimulus package isn't going to admit defeat anytime soon. Mark Thoma looks closer at a recent article from Tim Duy that addresses the misguided optimism coming out of the White House in his blog post below.

Tim Duy doesn't see the light at the end of the tunnel that the administration says may be there:

Optimism Abounds at the White House, by Tim Duy: With the ink barely dry on the recent stimulus package, commentators are already calling for a fresh round of stimulus. But will these calls be heeded, or fall on deaf ears? For now, it looks like the Obama Administration is standing firm. And, really, what else could we expect? A call for more stimulus at this juncture is only a signal that the first package was destined to be a failure from the beginning, an admission that this Administration could not afford so early in the term. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, delivered a clear message today:

“We absolutely need to let this one work,” Christina Romer, chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, said Monday at the Brookings Institution. Tax withholding tables are just now being changed to get more money into consumers’ pockets, she said, and many forecasters are saying the recent uptick in consumption may mean the economy is approaching bottom. “I think people are perhaps seeing some light at the end of the tunnel,” Ms. Romer said.

Light at the end of the tunnel...what information exactly is flowing into the Oval Office? Did the White House get the same jobs report the rest of us saw last Friday? Not so much light in that report as pitch black. Another 651k employees cut from payrolls, unemployment pushed to 8.1%, and the U6 rate pushed to a whopping 14.8%. These numbers are all expected to deteriorate in the months ahead. What else did we see last week? Perhaps the light was the in the ISM reports? Manufacturing barely budged, and remains mired deep in recession territory; nonmanufacturing tells a similar tale. Initial claims fell, but at 639k still signalscontinued sharp deterioration in the labor market, and the 4-week moving average still edged up. Maybe she is referring to the downward revision to 4Q08 productivity, which suggests firms still have more work to do in reducing labor costs.

Recent data shows little light, in my opinion. It describes an economy in virtual free fall. Romer appears to be holding onto the hope that the relative stabilization in real consumption expenditures signals a bottom of activity. I hope she is correct, but I remain cautious - households are getting a significant boost right now from declining energy prices, but with oil prices settling out in the $35 to $50 zone, future gains are less likely. Moreover, the confidence numbers are not supportive of a bounce back in consumer spending:

Most irritating is that Romer knows all this; she is much too smart to not appreciate the severity of the data. But once you go are in the Administration - whatever Administration - you heed to the party line. Romer continues the line:

The White House is betting that addressing the root cause of the economic downturn — the housing and financial-sector trouble — will be enough (along with the stimulus spending) to return the U.S. to growth. Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, “loves to say, ‘There’s more stimulus in financial rescue than in stimulus,’” Ms. Romer said. “By getting our financial markets back, getting lending going again, that’s incredibly important for aggregate demand and for spending.”

Sometimes I feel like I am in Oz. And I want to go home, so badly do I want to go home. To a time that credit flowed like water from a spring, and the answer to all life's problems could be found in a home equity line of credit. And Geithner is whispering to me, "just click your heels, and say 'I want to go home.'" Yet for months I have been clicking my heels - since Fall of 2007 - and still I am stuck in Oz.

Efforts to unglue the financial system are important, but I sense that the Administration's expectations of what will by delivered by a fix will fall far short of what is necessary to fill the growing hole in the US economy. Even BOA CEO Ken Lewis, in a self-serving WSJ oped, admits as much:

Second, one of our greatest challenges is balancing the need to extend credit with the need of households to pay down excessive debt. In an economy that became too dependent on debt-driven consumption to create growth, the prospect of household deleveraging is sobering. The answer, in my view, is to let competitive forces lead us back to responsible lending practices, not the type of indiscriminate lending that has created so many problems.

Even if households suddenly rediscover their love affair with credit, a big if given the destruction of wealth in recent months, they will find themselves stymied by tighter credit conditions. A healthy, well functioning financial system simply will not extend credit on the scale seen in recent years. Without a replacement for that demand, economic activity will slide into a sub par equilibrium, and would likely remain sub par for an extended period of time as structural imbalances are corrected. David Altig at macroblog summarizes:

When I look ahead, I envision the U.S. economy over the next several years in terms of a simultaneous process of recovery and reformation: Recovery in the sense that the actual contraction of GDP will end, but reformation in the sense of structural transformation in financial markets, consumer behavior, and perhaps an adjustment of the global imbalances that are arguably at the root of much of the financial instability that has characterized the past decade.

Additionally, what is the time line for a financial market fix? One month, or one year? Will TALF jump start the securitization market overnight? How much damage will be done to the US economy while we wait? This Administration appears willing to find out.

In short, I grow increasingly fearful that the pace of economic deterioration will leave the US economy in a much deeper hole than this Administration expected, swallowing the stimulus package. Moreover, that even with a functional financial market, crawling out of that hole will be difficult at best. I see little but fiscal stimulus that could fill that hole. You might not like it, you might worry about the long term budgetary consequences, but we all might soon fall back on the old battlefield adage: There are no atheists in foxholes.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

How Does U.S. Stimulus Spending Compare To The Rest Of The World?

The current economic crisis has lead to the fastest rate of job loss in any period since 1974, according to the New York Times. To help curb this disturbing trend President Obama has spent billions. But how does this recession's unemployment figures compare to past recessions? How much has the U.S. spent on our stimulus compared to other countries? Kathy Lien shows us some charts which answer those questions in her blog post below.

The labor market in the U.S. is weakening and the Obama Administration is trying to compensate by spending aggressively. The NY Times and Wall Street Journal released some great images on how job losses in the current recession compares to previous downturns and how the current degree of U.S. spending compares to the rest of the world.

Also check out the NY Time’s interactive How the Government Dealt With Past Recessions

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Obama's Stimulus Plan Won't Be Enough, And Could Even Ruin Him

Politics is a tricky game, and President Obama could be setting himself up for a tremendous fall. Right now his approval rating is sky high, but so too are his expectations. As famed economist Paul Krugman points out in his article, Obama's recent economic stimulus plan is much too small, and in all likelihood he is going to be forced to ask for more money. When that time comes people are going to assume the last stimulus package was a failure, and naturally Obama will take the brunt of the blame for it. He had a hard enough time garnering the necessary Republican support (3 votes) to get the first bill passed, and you can bet the next time around will be 100 times harder. For more on this, read Mark Thoma's blog post below:

I've heard people say the debate over the size of the stimulus package was misrepresented in the media, that the media rarely presented the view that the plan was too small.

President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told... Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.

Why do you say that? Won't his plan create millions of jobs?

Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least. It’s a credible promise... But 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month.

Ah, I see. Even though it's likely to create 3.5 million jobs as promised, it's still millions short of what is needed. So how do we improve the plan?

There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isn’t doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?

What are the answers?

On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obama’s latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.

“Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year,” the president declared — a belief and expectation that isn’t backed by any data or model I’m aware of. ... And there was no hint in the interview of readiness to do more.

Do you mean he doesn't seem ready to do more in terms of fiscal policy, or that he's not ready to do more of anything, in particular, more to help the banking system recover?

A real fix for the troubles of the banking system might help make up for the inadequate size of the stimulus plan... But he went on to dismiss calls for decisive action... As I read it, this dismissal — together with the continuing failure to announce any broad plans for bank restructuring — means that the White House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around. And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery ... well, you get the picture.

Yep. It's like one of those bad dreams where your feet won't move fast enough to get away from the impending doom closing in on you. Will the administration wake up and get moving?

Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?

One side won't, that's pretty clear, and I'm not so sure about the Democratic side of the aisle either.

Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes — which they always want to do... If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they’ll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.

And if there are any small successes to point to Republicans will, of course, insist it was because of the tax cuts in the first round of stimulus. Where does the public stand at this point?

The broader public ... favors strong action. ... But will that support still be there, say, six months from now?

I wouldn't count on it.

Also, an overwhelming majority believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration’s money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital.

I don't suppose we can borrow political capital from China?

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

And at that point, he begins pushing a new plan?

But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

Would you bet some of your Nobel money on that prediction?

O.K., that’s a warning, not a prediction. But economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Is Obama Killing Capitalism?

Most of Obama's recent moves have been heavily opposed by Republicans, but is he single handedly killing Capitalism — and Wall Street — as some are claiming? Economics professor Mark Thoma thinks that the claim is absolutely absurd, and in fact agrees with Robert Reich that Republicans are more responsible for the falling markets than Obama is. Thoma looks at a couple articles, and gives his input on the subject in his blog post below.

Republicans made the bed, now they want someone else to sleep in it:

Is Obama Responsible for Wall Street's Meltdown? Where Populist Rage is Heading, by Robert Reich: Is Obama responsible for the meltdown of the Dow? The consistently wrong-headed Wall Street Journal's editorial page says so, as does Republican Fox News, CNN's reliably demagogic Lou Dobbs, and now CNBC... CNBC's Jim Cramer, who bloviates nightly about stock picks, says Obama is pushing a "radical agenda" that's destroying investor's wealth. My friend Larry Kudlow, who rants nightly about nearly everything, says Obama is destroying capitalism. CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's ballistic nonsense about Obama's mortgage plan made him a pop-populist icon for a week or so.

The argument that Obama is somehow responsible for the collapse of Wall Street is absurd. First, every major policy that led to this collapse occurred under George W's watch (or, more accurately, his failure to watch). The housing and financial bubbles were created under Bush and exploded under Bush. The stock market began to collapse under Bush.

Second, it's inevitable that stocks, led by the bloated financial sector, would lose their remaining hot air as the new administration begins "stress-testing" the big banks, many of which are technically insolvent. After all, their share prices were built on a tissue of lies and dreams. Other sectors whose values were similarly distorted and distended by years of financial deception and regulatory disregard, such as housing and insurance, will also have to return to the real world before they can recover. Which could mean more stock losses.

Finally, none of the financial wizards who are now charging Obama with leading America into the abyss has offered an alternative plan for getting us out of the mess that, not incidentally, many of these same wizards happily led us into. For years, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the financial gurus of cable news cheered as Wall Street leveraged its way into oblivion.

This bizarre charge wouldn't be worth mentioning were it not a market test for a more intense attack from Wall Street and Republican media outlets next year as the nation moves into ... range of the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans have made no secret of their wish to blame Obama for the bad economy, and to stir up as much populist rage against his so-called "socialist" tendencies as politically possible. History shows how effective demagogic ravings can be when a public is stressed economically. Make no mistake: Angry right-wing populism lurks just below the surface..., ready to be launched not only at Obama but also at liberals, intellectuals, gays, blacks, Jews, the mainstream media, coastal elites, crypto socialists, and any other potential target of paranoid opportunity.

To complicate matters for Republicans, however, grass-roots populist rage is also building against Wall Street itself, and with some justification. Top Wall Streeters who raked in tens of millions of dollars a year for more than a decade have now effectively eviscerated the pension fund savings of millions of middle-class American workers and destroyed millions of Main Street jobs. The public is understandably appalled that its tax dollars are being used to pay and prop up the very people and institutions responsible for this debacle. And there seems to be no end in sight... Yet no one seems to know exactly where these dollars are going, or why. ...

The Wall Street and Republican media attack machine doesn't know exactly what to make of this. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, along with CNBC, alternates between attacking Obama for bailing out Wall Street and excusing Wall Street's excesses. But then again, Obama doesn't seem to know exactly what to make of it either. He seems to vacillate as well -- one moment scorning Wall Street, the next moment justifying further bailouts. I do hope he takes a firmer hand, drawing a clearer distinction and making a clearer connection between clearing up these financial balance sheets and helping average people. Otherwise, the next populist uprising will be born in this moneyed quagmire. It is here -- within the muck that was created by AIG, Citigroup, Fannie and Freddie, other giant financial institutions, now in combination with the U.S. Treasury and Fed -- that the public is most confused, bears its most serious scars, and is potentially most burdened in future years...

Why people should ignore Larry Kudlow:

The Housing Bears Are Wrong Again, by Larry Kudlow, NRO, June 2005: This tax-advantaged sector is writing how-to guide on wealth creation.

Homebuilders led the stock parade this week with a fantastic 11 percent gain. This is a group that hedge funds and bubbleheads love to hate. All the bond bears have been dead wrong... So have all the bubbleheads who expect housing-price crashes in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida, to bring down the consumer, the rest of the economy, and the entire stock market.

None of this has happened. ... Meanwhile, the homebuilders index has increased 76 percent over the past year, with particularly well-run companies like Toll Brothers up about twice as much. The bubbleheads missed all this because they haven’t done their homework. If they had put a little elbow grease into their analysis, they would have learned that new-housing starts for private homes and apartments haven’t changed much during the past three and a half decades. ...

Which leads to a final thought: Why not apply the same tax laws that have benefited home owners to stock market investors and home buyers? If this were to come about, even more wealth would be created in America, leading to even more new business and job creation. ...

Yes, too bad we didn't make the bubble even bigger. If capitalism is destroyed, something that's highly unlikely, it won't be Obama's fault. It will be the fault of people like Kudlow who "haven’t done their homework" and who opposed any and all attempts to temper the housing bubble through regulation or any other means - see the ridicule of "bubbleheads" above - and who continue to oppose such measures today. Capitalism may change, in fact it needs to change - the excesses that allowed the housing bubble to develop need to be tempered through regulation and other means - but if Kudlow and company have their way and continue to assert that what's good for the rich is good for America, that regulation was the problem not the solution, and that tax cuts are the answer to every problem, the change that is needed won't happen. It's easy to understand why they are so vocal in their opposition to the kinds of changes that are being proposed. The change that is needed to help stabilize the system will bring about destruction (creatively we hope), and people like Kudlow will likely be the ones who feel the brunt of that change as the advantages unregulated markets brought them disappear. But they shouldn't confuse the destruction of the elements that allowed them to take advantage of the system with the destruction of the system itself.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Obama's Housing Plan Will Just Create Another Housing Crash

Obama's new housing stability plan has some blatant flaws, including most notably that it is setting us up for another crash 5 years from now. In addition the way the plan is structured it is setting itself up for abuse — this will cost taxpayers a lot of money when all is said and done. Tim Iacono looks at the new housing plan details, and addresses some concerns he has about the program in his blog post below.

Details of the Treasury Department's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan were announced today. It's quite an interesting undertaking that seems like it will be good fun for at least the next couple years as stories of abuse and odd goings-on come to light.

There are three basic components - aid for refinancing, foreclosure avoidance, and more support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is the middle component, more properly known as the "Homeowner Stability Initiative", that is most intriguing and most likely to be abused in ways that can only be imagined today. Here's how the plan will work:

- The lender will have to first reduce interest rates on mortgages to a specified affordability level (specifically, bring down rates so that the borrower's monthly mortgage payment is no greater than 38% of his or her income).

- Next, the initiative will match further reductions in interest payments dollar-for-dollar with the lender, down to a 31% debt-to-income ratio for the borrower.

- To ensure long-term affordability, lenders will keep the modified payments in place for five years. After that point, the interest rate can be gradually stepped-up to the conforming loan rate in place at the time of the modification. Note: Lenders can also bring down monthly payments to these affordability targets through reducing the amount of mortgage principal. The initiative will provide a partial share of the costs of this principal reduction, up to the amount the lender would have received for an interest rate reduction.

The old days of a maximum 28 percent of income toward servicing a mortgage have almost returned. Over the years, many have been turned down for mortgages because they failed to meet this requirement - it's crazy to think that this figure got as high as 50 or 60 percent a few years back and then, well beyond that, when people started to lie about how much they made.

In the second step above - where government money enters the picture - there is a downward limit of two percent for the mortgage rate which, effectively, creates a lower limit on income for qualifying.

In other words, your mortgage payment won't get reduced to zero if you lost your job.

Here's an example of how it would work for "Family C" who, back in 2006, took out a 30-year subprime mortgage of $220,000 at 7.5 percent, on a house worth $230,000 at the time. Since the purchase, their home's value has fallen 18 percent to $189,000 and their income has shrunk such that their monthly mortgage payment of $1,538 is now 42 percent of their $3,650 monthly income.

Here's how lucky "Family C" gets their mortgage payment reduced by $406.
Here's the part about the lower limit on the new interest rate:

Protecting Taxpayers: To protect taxpayers, the Homeowner Stability Initiative will focus on sound modifications. If the total expected cost of a modification for a lender taking into account the government payments is expected to be higher than the direct costs of putting the homeowner through foreclosure, that borrower will not be eligible. For those borrowers unable to maintain homeownership, even under the affordable terms offered, the plan will provide incentives to encourage families and lenders to avoid the costly foreclosure process and minimize the damage that foreclosure imposes on lenders, borrowers and communities alike. Moreover, Treasury will not provide subsidies to reduce interest rates on modified loans to levels below 2%.

In the first part of the passage above, it's not clear how they'll determine if it makes more sense to modify the loan or to foreclose, but the two percent lower limit is very clear.

You can just see some of the possibilities here where people will figure out what they need to do to get their income down to that two percent rate - it will usher in a whole new wave of "liar loans", only this time people will be wanting their income to show up on the paperwork at a lower level.

Most importantly perhaps, this sets up a whole new wave of mortgage rate resets in five years as all of these loans revert to market rates which are sure to be much higher than the temporary rate.

This is, effectively, a government subsidized 5-year ARM with rates as low as 2 percent.

My, what progress we're making...

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

We Are Giving AIG More Money? Say It Ain’t So...

After insurance giant AIG reported the biggest quarterly loss in history — $61.7 billion to be exact — the government is ready to give them another $30 billion to help maintain their operations. In addition the government is restructuring past bailout deals to ease the burden on AIG. This new $30 billion will bring the total bailout tab to around $180 billion. That is, and should be, a difficult number to swallow. We will have invested $180 billion in ONE company. There are only two U.S. companies that even have market caps above $180 billion (Exxon and Walmart). AIG’s market cap is about $1.2 billion, in case you were wondering.

I’d like to say I thought this would be the last bailout for AIG, but if I did I’d be lying. Right now we are simply plugging holes in AIG with taxpayer dollars, and once the $30 billion gets used up they are going to come crawling back for more. The worst part is after we have already invested $180 billion, how are we going to say no to a few billion more? What will the final tally be when all is said and done? Your guess is as good as mine.

Matthew Karnitschnig from the Wall Street Journal wrote a good blog post that goes over some of the restructuring pieces included as part of the latest bailout. If you want to become more depressed about this whole situation then you are right now, I’d encourage you to read it. Here is the link: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/03/02/aig-the-rest-of-the-story/

Obama's Budget Looks Great According To Krugman

President Obama at least has one big supporter of his new budget, famed economist Paul Krugman. Krugman believes that this budget is just what the country needs to turn things around and applauds Obama for his efforts. Mark Thoma looks at a recent article from Krugman in his blog post below.

Paul Krugman finds lots to like in Obama's proposed budget:

Climate of Change, by Paul Krugman: Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression...: fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans ... have now been banished.

For this budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform. That’s not enough to pay for universal coverage, but it’s an impressive start. And Mr. Obama plans to pay for health reform, not just with higher taxes on the affluent, but by putting a halt to the creeping privatization of Medicare, eliminating overpayments to insurance companies.

On another front, it’s also heartening to see that the budget projects $645 billion in revenues from the sale of emission allowances. After years of denial and delay by its predecessor, the Obama administration is signaling that it’s ready to take on climate change. ...

Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.

Right now the deficit is huge thanks to temporary factors (at least we hope they’re temporary)... But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. ... So if Mr. Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire) and manages to engineer a solid economic recovery — two big ifs, to be sure — getting the deficit down to around $500 billion by 2013 shouldn’t be at all difficult. ...

So we have good priorities and plausible projections. What’s not to like about this budget? Basically, the long run outlook remains worrying.

According to the Obama administration’s budget projections, the ratio of federal debt to GDP. ... will soar over the next few years, then more or less stabilize ... at a debt-to-GDP. ratio of around 60 percent. ... [S]ooner or later we’re going to have to come to grips with the forces driving up long-run spending — above all, the ever-rising cost of health care.

And even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there’s probably a value-added tax in our future.

But I don’t blame Mr. Obama for leaving some big questions unanswered in this budget. There’s only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle in the midst of a severe crisis; he has probably taken on all he can, for now. And this budget looks very, very good.

More on the budget:

• Finally a Progressive Budget, Robert Reich
• Higher Taxes: Will The Republicans Cry Wolf Again? - Bruce Bartlett
• Obama’s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas, by David Leonhardt, New York Times

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Why We Should Break Up The Big Banks

Last week there was a lot of speculation that the US government would privatize mega banks, Citigroup and Bank of America, but now it appears that they are going to be happy with large stakes in the banks. The government believes that nationalizing the banks would ultimately cause more harm than good, and would like to avoid that path. Simon Johnson has a different view, though, he believes that the best course of action is to nationalize the big banks causing us so much grief, and then sell them off again in smaller pieces. This would ultimately remove much of the political power these monsterous institutions have over the government and our economy as a whole. Mark Thoma from the Economist's View looks at Johnson's article and adds some thoughts of his own in his blog post below:

Simon Johnson:

Privatize The Banks Already, by Simon Johnson: ...In some important and not good ways, we have already nationalized the financial system.

There’s the direct ownership that the government received through TARP and the reupping with Citi, BoA and some others. These stakes are obviously not (yet) voting stock, but the taxpayer certainly has capital at considerable risk.

Then we have the lines of credit provided by the Federal Reserve which, without a doubt, were instrumental to the survival of almost all major banks during the fall - and arguably remain critical today. The taxpayer has further downside risk here.

And, most importantly perhaps, we have the expansion of the Fed’s balance... In effect, the Fed is becoming a commercial bank as well as a central bank.

The government is essentially taking over the role of intermediation - take funds in and lend them out - for the US economy. This is a form of nationalization, and it will lead to all the lobbying and politically directed credits we have seen in other nationalized financial systems; taking away this credit once the economy starts to recover will not be easy. We have state control of finance without, well, much control over banks or anything else - we can limit executive compensation (maybe) but we don’t get to appoint directors (or replace entire boards) and we have no say in who really runs anything. Responsibility without power sounds accurate. ...

How then do we really privatize? By exercising leadership: take over insolvent banks and immediately reprivatize them. ... The taxpayer retains a significant number of shares (or the option to buy common stock) as a way to ensure upside participation...

Above all, we need to encourage or, most likely, force the large insolvent banks to break up. Their political power needs to be broken, and the only way to do that is to pull apart their economic empires. It doesn’t have to be done immediately, but it needs to be a clearly stated goal and metric for the entire reprivatization process.

No argument here. If there are good reasons to have banks so large their failure could bring down the entire system, a situation that gives them quite a bit of political leverage, I haven't heard them. There are questions about whether having many small banks as opposed to a few big banks reduces systemic risk, and if not, whether having lots of small banks makes policy intervention to stabilize and clean up the system more difficult when problems do arise - having just a few banks might be easier. But breaking up the banks does reduce political and economic power and I see no reason not to make this "a clearly stated goal and metric for the entire reprivatization process."

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Secret TARP Bailout Details To Be Released By Court Order

It appears that we finally (hopefully) will be able to see where our tax dollars are going, thanks to a recent court ruling. This court order will force the Treasury to release some of the information that they have been concealing from the American public in regards to the massive bailout of the country's financial system. Anthony Freed provides us with more information on this development in his blog post below:

Advocates of an open Government and transparent allocation of taxpayer funds celebrated the news late Friday afternoon (2-20-09) that the U.S. District court has moved to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to release more details about exactly how TARP bailout funds have been and are being used.

The TARP was passed in early October, 2008, in an effort to stem the damage to the nation’s financial industry incurred during a decade of lax risk-abatement that pervaded the banking culture after the legislative emasculation of the Glass-Steagall Act.

FOX Business sued Treasury on Dec. 18 over failure to provide information on the bailout funds or respond to FBN’s expedited requests filed under the FOIA. The initial request, filed on Nov. 25, sought actual data on the use of the bailout funds for American International Group (AIG) and the Bank of New York Mellon (BK), and an additional request, filed on Dec. 1, sought similar data on the bailout funds for Citigroup (C).

FBN asked the Treasury Department to identify, among other issues, the troubled assets purchased, any collateral extended, and any restrictions placed on these financial institutions for their participation in this program.

The Treasury Department - along with the other banking regulators like the FDIC, OTS, and the Federal Reserve - are notoriously secretive concerning the data they collect and their subsequent analysis of the viability of any particular institution, preferring to operate instead behind closed doors.

This tendency often leaves investors in the dark, which generally tends to work in the banks’ favor. Regulators would argue that they are not in the business of moving markets, and that some data may be misinterpreted and inadvertently cause a run on funds at named institutions, evidenced by Schumer’s now infamous disclosure of details that may have led to the collapse of Indy Mac Bank in 2008.

That argument may have held some water until the TARP bailout effectively made the U.S. taxpayer a shareholder in any number of as yet identified institutions, and the owner of any assortment of exotic financial instruments which have proved toxic to Global capital markets.

Judge Richard J. Holwell of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said in a decision Friday that the government is directed to comply with FOX Business’s request under the FOIA “within 30 days and to produce a Vaughn index with 45 days.” That means Treasury must comply with FOX Business’s request by Monday, March 23, and must produce a Vaughn index by Monday, April 6.

The Treasury will have the chance to withhold some documents and information they deem too sensitive, but now have to provide an itemized “Vaughn index” of which documents and information have been redacted, and for exactly what reason.

“A Vaughn Index must: (1) identify each document withheld; (2) state the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption.”

This may open the door to further FOIA challenges to release the remaining information if the Treasury fails to convince the courts that their vetting of information was reasonable.

I don’t think Treasury has realized that they are not the only ones who have new powers and responsibilities in the implementation of this historic bailout - the courts have yet to weigh-in on much of this, including who is ultimately going to be held responsible for the mess that is the economy, even if it is still taxpayers who have to foot the bill to clean it all up.

My guess is that the courts feel very differently about full disclosure than does the insider Wall Street elite who regulate themselves from Washington D.C. in seeming perpetuity.

Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a good op-ed piece called What We Don’t Know Will Hurt Us, which helps further the argument that it is time to get to bottom of exactly what is going on with our economy, and why their seems to be so little consequence for the perpetrators of so much devastation.

Americans are right to wonder why there has been scant punishment for the management and boards of bailed-out banks that recklessly sliced and diced all this debt into worthless gambling chips. They are also right to wonder why there is still little transparency in how TARP funds have been spent by these teetering institutions. If a CNBC commentator can stir up a populist dust storm by ranting that Obama’s new mortgage program (priced at $75 billion to $275 billion) is “promoting bad behavior,” imagine the tornado that would greet an even bigger bank bailout on top of the $700 billion already down the TARP drain.

Remember, the fundamental point of the TARP bailout is to funnel incredible amounts of taxpayer money - debt, actually - to the very institutions and people who are responsible for driving the markets off the cliff in the first place.

And they got paid handsomely for doing it.

It is time for our nation’s financial machine to drop the self-righteous arrogance they have cloaked themselves in for too long, for all of those paper-pushing money lords to release their false sense of entitlement, relinquish their ill-gotten wealth from the last 10 years, and to return to their proper place in the economic landscape as facilitators of capital creation, not the creators of capital.

Accountability in the largest disbursement of public funds in history is not only a good idea, it is essential to our democracy, as is ending the revolving door between corporate boardrooms and the regulatory offices of our government.

The Fox Business FOIA request and the court’s decision to release more information should serve as a warning to the Wall Street good ol’ boys that their orgy of omnipotence is truly over, and that the era of accountability is in.

This post can also be viewed on yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com.

Nationalizing Banks Will Harm The US Dollar

The buzz in the financial industry right now is whether or not the government is preparing to nationalize Citigroup and Bank of America, the two largest US banks. The government denied that they are even considering this measure, however, we wouldn't expect them to say anything else. The amount of liabilities that these banks have is staggering, and as Kathy Lien explains in her blog post below, a nationalization of these banks will have a dramatic impact on the US dollar.

I want to share my piece on How Nationalization of Citigroup and Bank of America could impact the US dollar if you haven’t caught it already (so I’m am posting his before I head to the NY Traders Expo).

The rally in gold prices tells us one thing and one thing only, which is that the fear has returned to the market. There is currently a lot of speculation that Citigroup and Bank of America could be nationalized by the US government. Although this would drive equities lower, it could also trigger capital flight out of the US dollar.

When Northern Rock was nationalized by the UK government in February of 2008, the British pound fell from 1.9638 to a low of 1.9363 over the course of 3 trading days. Although the dollar initially rallied on the news that the US government was taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008, it quickly gave back those gains to end the week lower against the Japanese Yen.

Nationalization will ultimately be negative for the US dollar because it increases the debt and liabilities of the US Federal Reserve and hence taxpayers. Nationalization is by no means a foregone conclusion especially since it is not a part of the US Treasury’s Financial Stability Plan. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd floated the idea of short term nationalization around but it will probably be the last option for the US government if the Financial Stability Plan fails to work quickly. In fact, the rebound in US equities was triggered by speculation that the Treasury could release more details regarding their plan to rescue the financial system next week. Also keep an eye on Bernanke’s Humphrey Hawkins Testimony on the US economy and Monetary Policy.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Should We Create Government Sponsored Shadow Banks?

According to Paul McCulley from Pimco, to revive the economy the government simply needs to create government sponsored shadow banks. Naturally this idea is a little controversial, especially considering the recent demise of this type of system. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made looks at an article written by McCulley in his blog post below:

Paul McCulley of Pimco thinks the new kind of shadow banking system is just swell:

The United States government now has both the tools and the will to save the private banking system, and more importantly, the real economy, from its own debt-deflationary pathologies. Not that it will be easy. But it can be done, notwithstanding the catcalls that greeted Secretary Geithner last week.

And the essential game plan is clear: use the power of the Fed, the FDIC and the Treasury to create government-sponsored shadow banks, such as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility (the TALF) and the Public-Private Investment Fund (the P-PIF).

The formula? Take a small dollop of the Treasury’s free-to-spend taxpayer money (there is still $350 billion left) to serve as the equity in a government sponsored shadow bank, and then lever the daylights out of it with loans from the Federal Reserve, funded with the printing press.
...
Yes, there will be subsidies involved, sometimes huge ones. And yes, the process will seem arbitrary and capricious at times, reeking of inequities. Such is the nature of government rescue schemes for broken banking systems, while maintaining them as privately owned.

You might not like it. I don’t like it, because regulators should never have let bankers, both conventional bankers and shadow bankers, run amok. But they did.

So it’s now time to hold the nose and do what must be done, however stinky it smells, not because it’s pleasant but because it is necessary.

Pragmatism takes on a whole new meaning at Pimco.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Gold Prices And US Dollar Both Rising

Those who keep up with gold and currency prices have probably noticed that things are a little strange right now. Typically the gold prices work inversely, however, right now they are rising almost instep. Currency expert Kathy Lien explains more about this phenomenon, and offers some insight into what is likely causing it in her blog post below:

If you haven’t caught it already, in my Daily Currency Focus on FX360, I talked about What the Rally in the US Dollar and Gold is Telling Us. As both the Dollar Index and Gold Prices press higher, it important to know what this means:

It is not very often that we see the US dollar and gold prices move in the same direction. Since gold is priced in dollars, the value of the yellow metal tends to fall when the dollar rises and rise when the dollar falls. However this has not been the case since January 14th as the rally in the US dollar corresponds with the rise in gold prices, which closed today at a 7 month high of $970 an ounce.

The last time we saw this traditionally negative correlation turn into a positive one was in 1982. At that time, recession hit many countries including the US. Although the rise in gold prices can be partially attributed to future inflation problems, the cohesive movement in the value of gold and the US dollar suggests that central banks around the world are losing credibility. There are growing concerns that a time bomb could explode in Europe leading to more troubles for the region as a whole. If that is the case, there may not be any safer form of investment than gold.

The rally in the US dollar and gold is telling the market that investors are worried about global economic stability outside of the US and therefore they are preparing for the worst.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

We Should Be Looking Out For American Jobs, Not Just American Companies

The protectionist movement has been growing in America, and with every new layoff announcement it only gets stronger. Only adding fuel to the fire is the billions upon billions of taxpayer money that the government is handing out to American companies. Naturally there would have been mass outrage if the U.S. government gave this money to foreign corporations. However, as Robert Reich explains in a recent article the country just might be better off if some of these foreign corporations received funds instead of some of the American companies. After all what good is it to unemployed American workers if these American companies take the bailout money and use it to expand operations in some foreign country? Reich's point is that we should be focusing on what will create the most American jobs, rather than just focusing on supporting American companies. Mark Thoma presents the article by Reich in his blog post below:

Robert Reich:

The Perils of Confusing American Companies With American Jobs, by Robert Reich: Do not confuse American companies with American jobs. The new stimulus bill, for example, requires that the money be used for production in the United States. Foreign governments, along with large U.S. multinationals concerned about possible foreign retaliation, charge this favors American-based companies. That's not quite true. Foreign companies are eligible to receive stimulus money for things they make here... For example, Alstom, the French engineering company, is eligible to receive stimulus funds for the power turbines it produces in Tennessee... On the other hand, U.S. Steel may not be eligible for stimulus money for the steel slabs it casts in Ontario, Canada.

I'm not defending the "buy American" provisions... I'm just saying they're not the same as "buy from American companies." And although these provisions skate close to protectionism and risk foreign retaliation, at least a case can be made that if American taxpayers are footing the bill..., the jobs should be created, well, here in America.

The same confusion haunts the debate over the auto bailout. Advocates of bailing out GM and Chrysler, and most likely Ford, say America can’t afford to lose "its" auto industry. But ... foreign-owned automakers, already producing cars here in the United States, employ – directly or indirectly – hundreds of thousands of Americans. ...

Meanwhile, the Big Three themselves are global. A Pontiac G8 shipped by GM from Australia has less American content than a BMW X5 assembled in the United States. ...

I’m not arguing against an auto bailout. But it ought to be focused on helping American auto workers rather than helping global auto companies headquartered in America. Why pay the Big Three billions of taxpayer dollars ... when, even after being bailed out, they cut tens of thousands of American jobs, slash wages, and shrink their American operations...?

That’s backwards. The auto bailout should help American autoworkers keep their jobs or get new ones that pay almost as well.

Whether it’s stimulus or bailout, policy makers must remember that American companies aren’t the same as American workers – and our first responsibility is to the latter.

"I'm not defending the 'buy American' provisions..." Neither am I.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

American's Worth Less Than In 2001, And It Is Getting Worse

According to a recent Federal Reserve report American's are actually worth less today than they were in 2001. Well known economist Paul Krugman blames the American tendency to spend instead of save for limiting our net worth growth, which should be of little surprise. Now it appears that this trend is ready to reverse, which will only exacerbate the economic problems the country is facing. Krugman also makes an interesting comparison to the Great Depression, and how we eventually were able to escape it. At the end of the day, though, he doesn't see the outlook for the economy as very good at all. Economics professor Mark Thoma looks at Krugman's article in his blog post below.

Do we have what it takes "to boot the economy out of a debt trap"?:

Decade at Bernie’s, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: By now everyone knows the sad tale of Bernard Madoff’s duped investors. They looked at their statements and thought they were rich. But then, one day, they discovered to their horror that their supposed wealth was a figment of someone else’s imagination.

Unfortunately, that’s a pretty good metaphor for what happened to America as a whole in the first decade of the 21st century.

Last week the Federal Reserve released the ... latest ... report on the assets and liabilities of American households. The bottom line is that there has been basically no wealth creation ... since the turn of the millennium: the net worth of the average American household, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 2001.

At one level this should come as no surprise. For most of the last decade America was a nation of borrowers and spenders, not savers. ... Why should we have expected our net worth to go up?

Yet until very recently Americans believed they were getting richer, because they received statements saying that their houses and stock portfolios were appreciating in value faster than their debts were increasing. ... Then reality struck... The surge in asset values had been an illusion — but the surge in debt had been all too real.

So now we’re in trouble — deeper trouble, I think, than most people realize... For this is a broad-based mess. Everyone talks about the problems of the banks... But the banks aren’t the only players with too much debt and too few assets; the same description applies to the private sector as a whole.

And as the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out in the 1930s, the things people ... do when they realize they have too much debt tend to be self-defeating when everyone tries to do them at the same time. Attempts to sell assets and pay off debt deepen the plunge in asset prices, further reducing net worth. Attempts to save more translate into a collapse of consumer demand, deepening the economic slump.

Are policy makers ready to do what it takes to break this vicious circle? In principle, yes. ... In practice, however, the policies ... don’t look adequate to the challenge. The fiscal stimulus plan, while it will certainly help, probably won’t do more than mitigate the economic side effects of debt deflation. And the much-awaited announcement of the bank rescue plan left everyone confused rather than reassured.

There’s hope that the bank rescue will eventually turn into something stronger. ... But even if we eventually do what’s needed on the bank front, that will solve only part of the problem.

If you want to see what it really takes to boot the economy out of a debt trap, look at the large public works program, otherwise known as World War II, that ended the Great Depression. The war didn’t just lead to full employment. It also led to rapidly rising incomes and substantial inflation, all with virtually no borrowing by the private sector. By 1945 the government’s debt had soared, but the ratio of private-sector debt to G.D.P. was only half what it had been in 1940. And this low level of private debt helped set the stage for the great postwar boom.

Since nothing like that is on the table, or seems likely to get on the table any time soon, it will take years for families and firms to work off the debt they ran up so blithely. The odds are that the legacy of our time of illusion — our decade at Bernie’s — will be a long, painful slump.

[Note: James Kwak has balance sheet calculations based upon the Federal Reserve report showing the severe deterioration in household balance sheets.]

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

An Idea To Break The California Budget Stalemate

The situation in California is bordering on ridiculous. Something has to be done to close the $41 billion budget deficit, but thanks to the inability of Republicans and Democrats to agree on a solution, nothing is happening. This stalemate has been going on for sometime now, and even after a 3o hour meeting this weekend they still can't agree on anything. The state is getting close to disaster and the parties need to figure out how to make this work. Tim Iacono looks at the situation more in depth in his blog post below, and even proposes a solution that might help light a fire under the legislators.

Could there be a better image than the one below from this LA Times story to symbolize the state of the California State legislature?

Apparently, they were up all night trying to get a new budget bill passed in order to close the gaping $41 billion deficit, but they were not able to produce the desired result.

The proposed plan is about an even mix of spending cuts and tax hikes, but the Republican minority doesn't seem to like the tax hikes much and, since budget bills require a two-thirds majority (which the Democrats don't have), nothing gets done until a few Republicans get on board.

In a situation that is not all that different from the U.S. Senate where a couple Republican votes are required to remove the filibuster threat, it is those few lawmakers from across the aisle that become all powerful.

What a way to run a government...

In California last night, Democrats came up one vote short of getting the three Republican votes needed to get the job done so they are set to resume talks at 11 AM today.

The deal appeared done at the weekend's start. Democrats already had sprinkled the budget with concessions to recalcitrant legislators, including more money for Orange County to please Sen. Louis Correa (D-Santa Ana), who had promised during his campaign not to raise taxes.

And two Senate Republicans were expected to vote for the package -- Dave Cogdill of Modesto, who played a role in negotiating the deal, and Roy Ashburn, a Bakersfield Republican in his final term. Among the concessions Ashburn won was a proposed $10,000 tax break for new home buyers.

Another key GOP senator, Dave Cox of Fair Oaks, was counted on by his own party's leaders to join the majority Democrats to win the two-thirds vote needed for passage. But Cox balked at the big tax bite.
...
In a bid to build pressure on balky Republicans, Schwarzenegger was ready to launch the notification process that could lead to the termination of 10,000 state workers in coming months, according to budget negotiators.

"That is a very real possibility," said Aaron McLear, the governor's spokesman.

The termination notices were intended to be sent Friday, but the governor delayed them because a budget vote appeared imminent.

They really ought to just stop paying elected officials on the first day after a new budget is due and it hasn't been passed.

A hit to the pocketbook can work wonders.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

$15,000 Homebuyer Tax Credit Trimmed In Negotiations

The Senate’s version of the economic stimulus package included a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit that would have been made available to all homebuyers. As I expressed in a blog post earlier this week, I didn’t think that it was such a good idea, and definitely not at the cost of almost $40 billion in taxpayer money. Thankfully, this credit was cut in House and Senate negotiations. The final version of the bill includes an $8,000 tax credit, which will be available to only first time homebuyers. A previous version of this tax credit was for $7,500, and was required to be paid back. This new tax credit will not need to be paid back as long as the homebuyer lives in the home for at least 3 years. The cost for this version should only cost taxpayers around $6.6 billion according to CNNMoney.

I’m not one to support any amount of artificial support for the real estate market, because I see it as unsustainable. However, if anyone is going to get a tax credit to buy a home, it should be first time homebuyers. These are the people that are entering a real estate market where prices are too high to begin with, and they need all the help they can get. I would have preferred a minimum ownership timeframe longer than 3 years, though. Anyone who was able to sell their home during the bubble should qualify. Turn that 3 years into 6 or 7, and that should do the trick.

Will this $8,000 tax credit be enough to turn the real estate market around? I doubt it, but at least taxpayers are only going to lose $6.6 billion instead of almost $40 billion, and the people getting the money will be more deserving. It is a small victory, but better than nothing I suppose.

Geithner's Misstep

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's recent speech failed to inspire investors, and if anything spread more doubt. The market's expected a clear solution to be laid out, and that just did not happen. One thing was for certain, though, huge numbers were being thrown around by Geithner. As James Picerno details below in his blog post, Geithner is promissing to release more details about the rescue plan in the coming weeks. We'll have to wait and see if he actually delivers as promised this time?

It's big, it's bold, but it's also vague. And that's the problem.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner yesterday explained the new new plan to solve the financial crisis that ails America. Alas, as articulated yesterday, the plan is short on solution details and long on general notions of what needs to be done.

The challenge is figuring out how the latest effort will work and, more importantly, deciding if it'll fare any better than its misguided predecessors. At the moment, that's a challenge with no immediate answer. As the David Byrne and Brian Eno audio montage intones, "America is waiting for a message of some sort or another."

Certainly the size of the announced plan is a bold stroke. How could $2 trillion be otherwise? We know that some of the money will go to buying up the so-called toxic securities that weigh heavily on the health of banks, and that's a step in the right direction, as the experience with the Resolution Trust Corp. suggests. Taking some of illiquid assets off banks' balance sheets should, in theory, help increase lending, which remains tight even at low interest rates. But the details matter, and it's not yet clear what the fine print will say.

“We need more details from Treasury on how exactly it plans to remove bad assets while protecting the taxpayer,” Senator John Kerry, a Democrat and a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee complains via The New York Times. “We have zombie banks that are weighed down because their liabilities exceed their assets. Without a precise mechanism for addressing toxic assets, it will be difficult to increase lending.”

Similar opining can be heard from economists, including a former IMF economist who now teaches at Harvard. “Tim Geithner did a great job in painting the broad strokes of the problem and laying out general principles, but it was a big disappointment not to have more details,” Ken Rogoff tells Bloomberg News.

Yes, Geithner promised to "flesh out the details" soon, presumably within the next few weeks, maybe in the next few days. Unfortunately, in the current climate, the only thing the secretary managed to do was to stoke more anxiety by introducing yet another strain of uncertainty into the marketplace. The last thing we need now is more indecision and ambiguity.

Sure, the government needs to act, but it needs to act intelligently. If yesterday's Geithner show is an indication, the latest round of talking points isn't quite ready for prime time. We feared as much when we learned over the weekend that the Treasury Secretary's scheduled speech to the Congress would be delayed 24 hours. As it turns out, Geithner should have delayed it a few more days, perhaps by a week or even more. As we learned yesterday, in the wake of a sharp selloff in the stock market, it's better these days to say nothing than to make broad comments that leave much to the imagination.

Meanwhile, the administration has been at fault by lifting expectations over the past week that it was going to announce a solution. The President has been talking up Geithner's big debut in Congress. But the optimist talking points, as much as they're welcome, were premature. No wonder, then, that the markets suffered an attitude adjustment as the reality set in that the big solution was really just another bout of talking without backing up the chatting with a concrete plan of action.

The good news is that the Geithner has only lost the first battle rather than the war. But time's running out, and so is patience. Certainly he'll have another chance to repair some if not all of the damage. But neither the Obama administration nor the economy can afford another halfway effort at explaining what happens next. The stakes now are higher than they were on Monday for bringing clarity and intelligence to the fore. Another stumble may result in even bigger financial pain, and not just in the price of equities.

"The uncertainty the government has created has made it nearly impossible to price many securities," says Douglas Dachille, chief executive of First Principles Capital Management, tells The Wall Street Journal.

At this point, no one's sure how the money will be deployed or what the rules are that will govern its usage. That's a problem. Yes, the White House is talking to Congress about just those details and a clearer plan will undoubtedly be hammered out, perhaps within a few days. Meanwhile, this is water torture, and the Obama administration probably recognizes the misstep in speaking out before a sufficient level of specifics was available for public consumption. Meanwhile, we're told that the plan was intentionally vague. Really? The White House reportedly says it wanted to be warm and fuzzy on the plan so as to give everyone an opportunity to put their two cents into the $2 trillion idea. So much for good intentions.

"First, we're going to require banking institutions to go through a carefully designed comprehensive stress test," Geithner advised yesterday. Apparently he's not kidding. But stressing out the financial industry with half-formed commentary isn't helping.

So far, however, the damage is still minimal, at least in terms of the term spread in government bonds, which is one measure of the credit crunch that's taking a toll. Nonetheless, the spread in the 10-year Note and 3-month T-bill is still over 250 basis points while the 10-year/2-year spread is just a hair under 200 basis points. By comparison, a year ago the 10-year/3-month spread was 130 basis points and the 10-year/2-year spread was 169 basis points. At the extreme low levels of interest rates generally in 2009, a wider spread would reflect running for cover into the arms of short-term government paper. That's a sign of distress in this climate if the spread is primarily a function of near-zero rates on the short end, which basically describes the current situation.

One test of the Obama administration's success on its bailout plan in the coming weeks and months will be to convince investors to move assets out of T-bills and into risky assets. An indication of that will be higher yields in T-bills, which are just hovering above zero. So far, no one's budging.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Why The Government Can’t Fix The Housing Crisis

It appears the government is ready and willing to do whatever it takes to fix the housing crisis, but there is one little problem: They can’t. As part of the new stimulus package, there will likely be a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, and not just for first-time homebuyers, but for all homebuyers purchasing a primary residence. In addition, the government will likely attempt to drive mortgage rates down to around 4.5 percent and work particularly hard to modify troubled loans to keep homeowners out of foreclosure. With these new measures in place the housing market will surely recover…right?

The answer to that question depends on your definition of recovery. Will it be enough to stop prices from falling, and possibly even help them start going up again? It’s definitely possible, but the problem won’t be fixed even if prices do turn around. Artificially inflated prices caused the housing crisis in the first place. Homeownership became an attractive option for more people than ever before through financing options that were cheap and widely available—a little too widely available, we are now discovering. ARMs, interest-only and other creative loan programs kept monthly payments low, and people could suddenly afford a more expensive house—or so it appeared. When interest rates started rising and ARMs reset, housing values stopped climbing and all hell broke loose.

So why would we believe that artificially boosting housing values will be sustainable this time? What do we think will happen when mortgage rates rise again and the tax credits expire? We won’t have to worry about ARMs resetting this time around because they are now shunned by banks for the most part, but the fundamental problem remains that housing is just too expensive compared to income. Interest rates can’t stay this low forever, and the tax credit will expire after the end of the year. Then homebuyers will only have their personal income to rely on to pay for their homes. This is how it has always been (minus government intervention), and it is how it should be. People making $50,000 a year shouldn’t be living in a $400,000 house—It’s that simple. People need to live within their means, but the government doesn’t seem to grasp this and keeps pushing measures to modify home loans. We can try to modify people’s loans all day long, but if they can’t afford their homes, then they can’t afford their homes. According to the Wall Street Journal, over 40 percent of borrowers were at least 60 days past due eight months after their loan was modified. It seems to me that these loan modifications are just delaying the inevitable and costing banks and taxpayers more money.

Before the housing crisis can truly end, housing prices must come into balance with incomes. When this happens, the problem will solve itself. When buying a home starts to make more sense than renting, people will start buying again. It isn’t that hard to figure out. Spending taxpayer money to prop up housing is not only a waste, but an unethical perpetuation of the problem. It is completely unfair to renters as well as our youth. Unfortunately, those groups represent the minority, so their voice isn’t likely to be heard. If these measures are passed, expect to pay handsomely for it and to see another bubble burst a few years from now. At least this time no one should be able to use the excuse that they didn’t see it coming.

Tax Cuts Could Deepen The Recession

There has been non-stop debate between Republicans and Democrats for the past couple weeks regarding how the economic stimulus bill should be structured. Republicans want a majority to go towards tax cuts, and the Democrats want to see high levels of spending. It appears that the Democrats are going to win out in this debate, thinks to their heavy numbers advantage, but according to the New York Fed's Gauti Eggertsson that is a good thing. He wrote a paper theorizing that in today's economic environment tax cuts have the potential to backfire, and possibly even deepen the recession. Economics professor and author of the Economist's View blog, Mark Thoma, looks at this closer in his blog post below.

Justin Wolfers summarizes a paper that suggests government spending would be better than tax cuts at reviving the economy:

Tax Cuts vs. Government Spending, by Justin Wolfers: As the Senate and the House look to reconcile competing stimulus plans, the big debate is whether to emphasize government spending or tax cuts. A new paper by the New York Fed’s Gauti Eggertsson argues that the risk of deflation should tilt the balance to government spending.

Our current problem is deficient aggregate demand. The government can raise total spending either by buying more stuff, or it can lower taxes and hope that consumers take their tax breaks to the mall. ...

But that’s not the whole story. Tax cuts stimulate both aggregate demand and aggregate supply. If taxes are temporarily lower, they make working today more attractive than working tomorrow, and thus increase labor supply. This boost to the nation’s productive capacity means that a tax-cut-based stimulus doesn’t do as much to narrow the gap between output and what we can produce.

Under normal circumstances, this doesn’t present a problem, because the Fed can lower interest rates to close this output gap. But right now, the Fed has set interest rates as low as they can go, and so different principles apply. Eggertsson’s concern is that a big output gap will lead inflation to fall, leading real interest rates to rise in the middle of the recession. These higher real interest rates further dampen economic activity, and with the Fed powerless to offset this, there’s the very real risk of a deflationary spiral. And so a tax-cut-based fiscal stimulus might actually backfire. In fact, Eggertsson reckons there’s a chance that tax cuts could even deepen the recession.

Is Eggertson’s conjecture right? Unfortunately the historical record can’t tell us: there’s never been an episode in which we’ve tried reducing taxes when interest rates were this low. When we’re in uncharted waters, we’ve got nothing but economic theory to guide us. And the theory says it’s safer to stick to a spending-based stimulus plan.

I'd like to be able to rely on this as one more piece of evidence for government spending over taxes, but I have doubts that the aggregate supply (labor supply) effect would be large enough to make much of a difference. The author also suggests caution:

I am bit hesitant to draw the lesson from this paper that it would be ideal to raise payroll taxes to stimulate the US economy today, although this clearly is a direct implication of the analysis

And he also says:

What should we take out of all of this? ...[One] lesson is that policymakers today should view with great deal of skepticisms any empirical evidence on the effect of tax cuts or government spending based on post war US data. The number of these studies is high, and they are frequently cited in the current debate. The model presented here, which has by now become a workhorse model in macroeconomics, predicts that the effect of tax cuts and government spending is fundamentally different at zero nominal interest rates than under normal circumstances.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Total Financial Crisis Commitment Nearing $10 Trillion

Bloomberg has been fighting with the government in an attempt to gain visibility into the Federal Reserve's recent lending practices, however, to this point they have been unsuccessful. Of course the fact that the government is denying the request has only brought ramped speculation about what they are hiding. One thing that we do know is that the price tag for this financial crisis keeps growing and growing, with no end in sight. Most people are only aware of the $700 TARP package, and the new $800+ billion stimulus package nearing completion as we speak. The truth of the matter is that the real price tag is much more than that. Tim Iacono looks at the Bloomberg report in his blog post below that shows us the real price tag is close to $10 trillion (that is not a typo).

It looks like Bloomberg v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is moving along nicely with arguments to be heard as soon as this month.

Recall that Bloomberg sued the central bank after their Freedom of Information Act request about Fed lending to distressed banks was denied. They simply wanted to know what kind of assets they were getting in exchange for their pristine Treasuries, how much and from whom.

The Fed wouldn't tell 'em. The Treasury Department isn't talking either.

In the meantime, the staff at Bloomberg is taking an increasingly skeptical look at both the sums of money involved and how it is being authorized and spent, as seen in this report:

The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.
...
Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. Recipients’ names have not been disclosed.

“We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. “Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?”

You have to wonder why Congress even bothers going through the arduous task of passing legislation for a measly trillion or two when so much money can be made available without the approval of elected officials - about four times as much by my math.

And the best part about doing it that way is that you don't have to tell anybody where it went.

Of course, Congress might want to know and you might get sued.

The Bloomber report goes on to put the total amount of money in perspective just like when Senate Republicans were talking about the stimulus package the other day with images of hundred dollar bills stacked 600+ miles high and/or laid end to end, circling the earth 40 times.

That was for just $800 billion.

Somehow, for $10 trillion, this doesn't sound nearly as impressive.

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.

Maybe it is impressive, but $1,430 doesn't really sound like a lot of money.

Remember when they talked about $30 or $50 billion for Iraq and then it turned into hundreds of billions of dollars and that was such a big deal?

Now, even a hundred billion dollars doesn't sound like much anymore.

Soon, one trillion might not sound like a lot either.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Geithner's Financial Stability Plan

This morning the new plan to rescue the financial system was unveiled by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but so far the markets have not reacted very positively to the news. It is still early, but it appears investors are not sold on the proposed government actions. In his speech Geithner threw around numbers as high as $1 tillion, which represents the expansion of a key Federal Reserve lending program, according to the Associated Press. But even that failed to impress investors. Kathy Lien talks more about the new rescue plan and the impact to currency and financial markets in her blog post below.

The Treasury Secretary has finally spoken and the markets are disappointed!

The price action in the currency markets suggests that investors are disappointed by the lack of details from the Treasury’s new Financial Stability Plan and are skeptical about the effectiveness of getting the private sector involved. Furthermore, investors are not happy about being apart of an experiment (although I think this is the only way to go because all of the old measures have proven effective).

Geithner announced a cocktail of initiatives using “things we haven’t tried before” and warned “that we will make mistakes.” If the Treasury Secretary is not 100 percent confident in his own plan, how could investors be?

Traders have plowed right back into the US dollar on the fear that the US government is rolling the dice once again. Equities have also fallen as much as 300 points.

The Treasury’s Super TARP plan, which is now renamed as the Financial Stability Plan has 3 core components:

1. More Capital for Healthy Banks

2. New Financing for as Much as $1 trillion of Consumer and Business loans

3. Public Financing for Private Investors Willing to Buy Distressed Debt (details of private/public investment fund have not been released)

Read the rest of this analysis on FX360.com

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Krugman Rips Into Senate Centrists

If you have read a newspaper, or watched the news, recently you are probably aware of the difficulties that Republicans and Democrats have had in coming to a consensus on the new stimulus bill. It appears that Democrats have been able to win the vote of at least a few Republicans, enough to get the bill passed, however, at what cost have those votes come? According to well known economist Paul Krugman, the price was extremely high. Mark Thoma from The Economist's View, looks at Krugman's article in his blog post below.

President Obama's net return on his investment in bipartisanship isn't very good:

The Destructive Center, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

Even ... the original Obama plan — around $800 billion ... with a substantial fraction ... given over to ineffective tax cuts — ...wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy... Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.

One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments... But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending.

The original plan also included badly needed ... school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut..., with the great bulk ... falling on ... measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump.

On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers...: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy.

All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.

But how did this happen? ... Mr. Obama ... offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support...

Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate...

And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan...

In the Senate, Republicans ... decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.

Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.

Now,... it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.

So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Concerns About The Economic Stimulus Package

The Senate is expected to vote on the new economic stimulus bill on Tuesday, according to the Wall Street Journal, and it appears it will be able to squeak through. Once the Senate passes the bill it will need to go through House-Senate negotiations, but it should just be a matter of time before the bill ends up on the President’s desk for signing. The bill has not seen the sweeping bi-partisan support that President Obama was hoping for, but could we honestly expect anything but controversy? Senate Democrats only needed a couple Republican votes to make it happen, and that is exactly what they were able to get. So what exactly about this bill has Republicans up in arms? And do their concerns have any merit?

The biggest complaint coming from the Republican side is that the bill is full of wasteful spending. According to an analysis in the Washington Post, the new version of the bill is 78 percent spending and only 22 percent tax cuts. Naturally this type of break down isn’t going to sit well with most Republicans. To make matters worse, the urgency with which supporters want to pump money into the economy has many questioning how well this massive spending will be regulated—if at all. According to the Post, “The stimulus plan presents a stark choice: The government can spend unprecedented amounts of money quickly in an effort to jump-start the economy or it can move more deliberately to thwart the cost overruns common to federal contracts in recent years.”

“’You can't have both,’ said Eileen Norcross, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center who studied crisis spending in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. ‘There is no way to get around having to make a choice.’”

The objections to the spending portion of the bill prompted Obama to make the following statement at a recent House Democratic retreat, according to the Wall Street Journal: “So then you get the argument, ‘Well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.’ What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)”

The Republicans continue to claim that tax cuts are more efficient than many of the spending proposals being included in the bill. If you are interested in hearing more about that, here is a good opinion piece recently published in the WSJ.

The way that I look at it, we have already tried tax cuts, and they didn’t work out quite as well as we had hoped. Though I don’t think that means we should give up on them all together, I am willing to give other things a try. What I don’t like is the lack of oversight on the spending. If we are going to spend $600 billion, I sincerely hope that we can spare a few million to ensure that these billions are used effectively. I don’t want to see us squander this stimulus money the way that we have the in past. This article in the Post gives a good walk-through of the potential problems with spending oversight as it sits now. Leaders would do well to read this and think hard about how they can ensure that we stimulate the economy in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

Unemployment Surges Again. Stimulus Debate Continues.

In an alarming trend, the recent unemployment report was yet again worse than economists expected. January nonfarm payrolls fell by a seasonally adjusted 598,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected to see 525,000 job losses, considerably less than what was actually reported. In addition to the 598,000 job losses reported for January, the BLS also revised the job loss tally for December from 524,000 to 577,000. Sadly people are growing accustomed to this sort of news, but that doesn’t make this latest report any less grim. "The only 'positive' of today's report is that these ugly numbers put even more pressure on policymakers to finally agree on fiscal measures to stop the downward spiral of the economy," wrote Harm Bandholz, economist for UniCredit Markets as reported by MarketWatch.

This latest report just might be what is needed to get the new stimulus bill passed. I for one did not expect there to be as much debate as there has been. Although Democrats are only a couple votes away in preliminary projections, they want to ensure that the bill is in a form that is guaranteed to pass when it’s time to vote. It will be interesting to see how the bill evolves as the parties negotiate. Both sides want to see something passed, and so eventually something will get passed in one form or another. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has given the group of 20 bipartisan senators working to put this bill together a deadline of today to resolve their differences, according to CNN.

President Obama is pushing the Senate hard to get something passed, stressing that time is of the essence. “If we do not move swiftly to sign [the act] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," Obama was quoted as saying by CNN. "This is not my assessment. This is not Nancy Pelosi's assessment. This is the assessment of the best economists in the country. This is the assessment of some of the former advisers of some of the same folks who are making these criticisms right now."

Obama’s goal has been to have the legislation on his desk and ready to be signed into law on Presidents Day, February 16^th, according to CNN. There is still a lot of work to be done on the bill, but I imagine that they will have something ready by the end of the weekend, if not by the end of the day.

Roads, Bridges, Sewers And...Disc Golf Courses?

A large portion of the proposed $800 to $900 billion stimulus plan is directed toward infrastructure projects. The goals of these projects are first and foremost to create jobs and stimulate the economy, but also to complete vital upgrades to infrastructure that is terribly outdated and failing. When you think about these vital projects, you might picture 100-year old leaky underground water lines or bridges that are nearing collapse. These are projects that will create jobs and without a doubt fulfill a severe need for renovation. What you probably don’t picture when you think about these infrastructure projects are things like a 36-hole disc golf course (price tag $886,000), replacement tennis courts ($1.8 million) or an eco-park complete with a butterfly garden ($4.5 million), but these are all things that could potentially be paid for as part of the new stimulus package.

It should be noted that the above mentioned projects were only part of the nearly 19 thousand projects submitted by local governments as “Ready to Go” according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). They have not yet been approved, and it is not certain that they will become part of the final stimulus package. One would think, though, that these local governments would think a little harder before submitting potentially egregious projects like these, considering the recent taxpayer outrage expressed at how banks are using their stimulus money. In addition to the WSJ article, you will also find one that talks about teacher layoffs and large scale cuts to education budgets across the country. Don’t get me wrong, disc golf and butterflies are great, but why would we even consider investing millions of dollars into projects like this when we have so many other places where the money could be put to better use.

President Obama has said repeatedly that this bill will be entirely free of ear marks, and I certainly hope that is the case. I’m not sure how the public would react if they found that their tax dollars were going to fund disc golf courses and tennis courts while their kid’s teacher is laid off. I know we want to get the bill passed quickly, but let’s make sure we do it the right way. We need to make sure that this money is put to its best possible use. We don’t have billions of dollars to waste here, and I hope that the proponents of this bill recognize this.

Are Life Insurance Companies Next To Fall?

As we watch banks fail and beg for government aid, problems in another important financing services sector could be getting overlooked. With everyone already losing sleep from worrying about the status of their retirement accounts or even their jobs, the last thing they need to worry about is the status of their life insurance coverage. After all, we get life insurance coverage so we don’t lose sleep thinking about how our family will manage if we die. The fact that the insurance industry is now lobbying the government for help is not a good sign, though.

Many of the big life insurance companies have been in business for a long time—more than a hundred years in some cases. They have managed to make it through numerous recessions and even the Great Depression. What is it then about today’s economy that is putting some companies in such dire straits? The answer lies in the investments being made by the companies in question. One of the biggest concerns for insurance companies right now is that they have a lot of outstanding guaranteed annuity contracts. That means that regardless of how the market performs, they are still required to pay out a set percentage rate to the contract holder. The problem of course is that returns aren’t very easy to come by in today’s marketplace. Stocks are losing money for the insurance companies, and government bonds don’t pay out enough. To make matters worse, some insurance companies even invested in assets that they thought were safe, but have come to find out were not. Here is a line from a recent article in the Washington Post: “The insurance industry's wherewithal is closely tied to the health of the broader financial system. If the investments that insurance companies make with your premium dollars don't perform well enough over the long run— or even the not-so-long run— insurers could have trouble keeping their promises.”

The good news for those of us with life insurance policies is that some—if not all—of the policy is guaranteed. Much like how deposit funds are guaranteed up to a certain amount, so too are life insurance contracts. According to the Washington Post, “The individual benefits guaranteed by the associations vary from state to state. The guarantees in most states are $300,000 in death benefits, $100,000 in cash withdrawals from life policies, $100,000 in cash withdrawals from annuities and $300,000 total per person, according to NOLHGA.” One important note, though, is that this insurance guarantee works differently than how the FDIC works in the banking industry. Insurance companies are in essence guaranteed by other insurance companies, so if one company goes under it will directly impact the rest. So it could be possible that one failure could lead to a string of failures, each one pushing another company over the brink. It is unlikely that the government would allow such a thing to happen, especially considering their propensity to rescue vital industries; nonetheless, it is a possibility to ponder.

If you have read the story in the Post you will probably note that though the industry admits to approaching the government for aid, they have also expressed that they have plenty of money to pay claims. This sounds eerily familiar to what the banks said before all heck started breaking loose. Of course they are going to say they can pay claims. If they said otherwise, then no one else would do business with them and clients who could, would run for the doors. The bottom line is, if they didn’t really need the money why would they approach the government for help?

How To Prevent Another Depression

We are no where near a depression yet, but many people are worrying that we are heading for one. So what can the government do to prevent another depression? According to Brad DeLong we have 4 options. Mark Thoma from The Economist's View looks at DeLong's 4 options in his blog post below.

What can governments do to try to keep the economy out of a depression?:

Depression economics: Four options, by J. Bradford DeLong, Commentary, Project Syndicate: When an economy falls into a depression, governments can try four things... Call them fiscal policy, credit policy, monetary policy, and inflation.

Inflation is the most straightforward to explain: The government prints lots of banknotes and spends them. The extra cash in the economy raises prices. As prices rise, people don't want to hold cash... - its value is melting away every day - so they step up the pace at which they spend... This spending pulls people out of unemployment..., and pushes ... production up to 'potential' levels.

But sane people would rather avoid inflation. It is a very dangerous expedient, one that undermines standards of value, renders economic calculation virtually impossible, and redistributes wealth at random. ... But governments will resort to inflation before they will allow another Great Depression. We just would very much rather not go there, if there is any alternative...

The standard way to fight incipient depressions is through monetary policy. ... The problem with monetary policy is that ... the ... nominal interest rate on government securities is zero. ... And this is too bad, for if we could prevent a depression with monetary policy alone, we would do so, as it is the policy tool for ... stabilisation that we know best and that carries the least risk of disruptive side effects.

The third tool is credit policy. We would like to boost spending immediately by getting businesses to invest... Risky projects are at a steep discount today... No one is willing to buy assets and take on additional uncertainty... Although the world's central banks and finance ministries have been devising many ingenious and innovative policies to stimulate credit, so far they have not had much success.

This brings us to the fourth tool: fiscal policy. Have the government borrow and spend, thereby pulling people out of unemployment and pushing up capacity utilisation to normal levels. There are drawbacks: the subsequent dead-weight loss of financing all the extra government debt..., and the fear that too rapid a run-up in debt may discourage private investors from building physical assets...

But when you have only two tools left, neither of which is perfect for the job - credit policy and fiscal policy - the rational thing is to try both, at the same time. That is what the Obama administration ... and other governments are attempting to do right now.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Stimulus Bill Now Being Debated In Senate

A new $819 billion stimulus bill was passed by the House earlier this week, and the debate has moved on to the Senate, despite major opposition from House Republicans. Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill according to the Wall Street Journal, but to get the 60 votes necessary to clear the Senate, the bill’s supporters will need to garner at least some Republican votes without losing any of the 58 Democrat senators. To secure those necessary Republican votes, some concessions will likely need to be made. One way or another, it is expected that this bill will be passed, but it remains to be seen how much political capital Obama will have to spend to make it happen.

The major divide between the two parties on the bill basically boils down to the allocation of the funds. Both parties support a stimulus bill in principle, but Republicans want to see the funds going toward things such as tax-cuts where as Democrats prefer government spending. In reality, this debate isn’t new, and considering the heavy numbers advantage that the Democrats enjoy in the House, Senate and now White House, the bill should lean toward their ideology. However, it is likely that Republicans will get a bone or two thrown their way in the process. Obama has stated time and time again that he wants broad, bi-partisan support for this bill, but it is unlikely that Democrats will be willing to give up too much considering their steep numbers advantage.

As a side note, the Wall Street Journal reported the formation of a coalition which backs the stimulus bill and which includes labor and environmental groups. The purpose of the group is to raise pressure on senators—specifically Republican senators—to support the bill. They announced Thursday that they will air ads around the country to encourage Republicans, "to support the Obama plan for jobs, not the failed policies of the past." The ads will run in Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa and Alaska according to the Journal. You can be certain that Democrats will remind Republicans and their supporters that their policies have been nothing but failures of late. The public is largely on board with this sentiment, evidenced by numerous polls. If nothing else we should get a chance to see how these new policies actually work in today’s economic climate.

GDP Falls Sharply, But It Could Have Been Worse

The GDP report for the fourth quarter of 2008 showed a steep decline, however, experts thought it was going to be even worse than it was, so that is positive news. There are certainly some indicators that show we should be alarmed about the economy right now, but there are also some positive sparks coming out of these reports that we shouldn't overlook either. James Picerno from the Capital Spectator looks closer at the report and shines some light into what this all means in his blog post below.

Today's report on last year's fourth-quarter GDP wasn't good. In fact, it was quite ugly. But it could have been a lot worse.

Even so, the 3.8% contraction in the economy in 2008's final three months was the steepest decline since 1982. The previous recession in 2001 never came close to what's unfolding now. The 1990-91 slump was deeper, but even that will look mild by the time the current downturn has run its course.

In other words, we're now in the thick of the worst recession since the early 1980s. That said, the crowd was expecting a far deeper loss. The consensus forecast for Q4 GDP was -5.5%, according to Briefing.com. By that standard, the reported 3.8% retreat was a surprise.

Of course, today's GDP report is the first of three estimates from the government and so we must brace ourselves for the possibility of downward revisions. But for the moment, it's fair to say that the recession isn't quite as bad as some had feared, at least if we're using GDP as a benchmark.

That's a thin reed, of course, since it's likely that the pain will run on for some time. Meanwhile, no one should be complacent about the trend. Last year's third quarter posted a mild -0.5% setback, but the wealth destruction became materially worse in Q4. The first three months of this year are likely to be no better and even money says it's likely to get worse for a quarter or two.

Indeed, there's no way to put a positive spin on the fact that consumer spending—the main engine of economic growth for the U.S.—continued to decline at a robust pace in Q4. Personal consumption expenditures fell a hefty 3.5% in last year's final three months, almost as fast as Q3's 3.8% decline. The pain is especially acute in durable goods spending, the so-called big ticket items such as appliances. The huge 22% fall in durable goods spending in Q4 is certainly humbling; it's also a sign of just much has changed in the consumer mindset.

Yet there was a bit of good news. Spending in services by consumers actually rose in Q4, advancing by 1.7%. That compares favorably to Q3's marginal loss. Given the heft of services in the economy, the growth is particularly important to offset weakness almost everywhere else.

Alas, the export machine that had offered so much hope last year as a buffer to economic pain elsewhere is now in full retreat. Exports fell 20% in Q4, the deepest drop in many a moon. Imports slid as well, although not quite as fast.

Overall, today's GDP report is a reminder that we're now in the midst of what promises to a deep recession, perhaps the worst since the Great Depression. The great question is how all the government stimulus will affect GDP this year. The monetary stimulus is only now starting to filter through the economy, and it will be soon followed by another round of fiscal stimulus. Stay tuned.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Is Free-Market Ideology Flawed?

In a controversial article published in the Guardian, Jeffrey Sachs calls out free-market ideology as flawed and applauds the measures being taken by Obama to get the government more involved in business. America is known for its relatively free-market economy, and for years it seemed to work great, but Sachs argues that things have changed. Whether or not one agrees with Sachs it is interesting to hear his perspective on things. Mark Thoma from the Economist's View presents Sach's article in his blog post below.

Jeff Sachs seems to be pleased with the new administrations commitment to "a new age of sustainable development":

Rewriting the rulebook for 21st-century capitalism, by Jeffrey Sachs, CIF, The Guardian: One of President Barack Obama's historic contributions will be a grand act of policy jujitsu - turning the crushing economic crisis into the launch of a new age of sustainable development. ... Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments directed at the great challenges of energy, climate, food production, water and biodiversity.

The new president has taken every opportunity to underscore that the economic crisis will not slow, but rather will accelerate, the much-needed economic transformation to sustainability. ... The fiscal stimulus ... will lay down the first steps of a massive generation-long technological overhaul...

Obama has started with the most important first step: a team of scientific and technological advisers of stunning quality... He has also focused on two core truths of sustainable development: that technological overhaul lies at the core of the challenge, and that such an overhaul requires a public-private partnership for success. Taking shape, therefore, is nothing less than a new 21st-century model of capitalism ... committed to the dual objectives of economic development and sustainability...

Consider the challenge of a bankrupt automobile sector... In the Obama strategy, GM will not be closed to punish it... It's worth far too much as a world leader in the electric vehicles of the 21st century. ...

Conservatives are aghast. The bail-out of the auto industry was hard enough to swallow. Government investments in infrastructure and research and development are viewed with scorn, compared with the tried and true (if disastrously failed) tax cuts of the Bush era. Rightwing pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to "tell us what kind of car to drive". Yet that is exactly what they intend to do (at least with regard to the power source under the hood), and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change, water stress, food scarcity and energy insecurity. Public-private efforts to steer the economy to a safe technological harbour will be the order of the new era.

There is plenty of room for blunders... Government activism can founder on the shoals of massive budget deficits, tax-cutting populism pushed by the right, politically motivated investments such as corn-based ethanol..., and more. Yet Obama is absolutely correct that we have no choice but to try...

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

All States Are Suffering From Job Losses

A report issued by the Labor Department yesterday indicated that unemployment rose in every single state in December. When oil was still near record highs a few months ago, at least the big energy-producing areas were doing well, but now they are suffering like everyone else. This goes to show you that no area is being spared from economic turmoil. The states that lead the housing boom—such as California, Nevada and Florida—were the first ones to really feel the pain from the downturn. One would think that because they led the downturn they might also lead the rebound, but if that is the case then we still have more pain coming because things are still going from bad to worse in those states. According to the Wall Street Journal, California saw an increase in unemployment of 0.9 percent in November and December, while Florida and Nevada saw increases of 0.7 percent and 1.0 percent respectively.

The last 4 months of 2008 were especially bad. Around 2 million jobs were eliminated from September 2008 to the end of the year. Then on Monday this week—now dubbed “Black Monday”—over 70,000 jobs were cut on a single day. So when is the carnage going to end?

Certainly the new stimulus package won’t hurt the employment outlook, with early projections estimating that the bill will create or save around 4 million jobs, according to the Associated Press. The bill is being reviewed by the House and it is expected to be passed later in the day according to the Wall Street Journal. After passing the House, the bill will then make its way to the Senate. There is still some lobbying to change parts of the bill, but it is widely expected that it will pass in one form or another and arrive on the President’s desk within the next few weeks.

It remains questionable at best whether the bill will work as planned. This current economic environment is different than anything we have ever seen before, and we are really just guessing on the true impact of these initiatives. Will $825 billion be enough? Is the money being allocated to the appropriate places? Will borrowing the money to finance the programs cause problems in the debt markets? These are just a few of the many questions that lawmakers are trying to answer. The truth is, though, that no one knows the answer. They can make educated guesses at best. Let’s just hope that Obama knows what he is doing...and wishing for a little luck won’t hurt either.

What Will The Fed Do To Stimulate The Economy Now?

Bernanke and the Fed already played their last interest rate card, so if they can't lower rates what else can they do to get the economy back on track? There is a lot of speculation going around right now about what they might do, but we shall find out for ourselves later today. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator talks about the Fed meeting and the economy in general, adding some valuable input in his blog post below.

The press release that follows the Fed's FOMC meeting today may offer clues about how the central bank will proceed now that it's out of conventional monetary policy ammunition. Then again, maybe not. We're all trapped in gray zone of trial and error about what to do next and the Federal Reserve is also now faced with grasping at straws.

Typically, an afternoon FOMC press release attracts interest for an update on where short-term interest rates are headed. Today, and probably for some time to come, everyone already knows the answer. The Fed controls short rates, starting with the all-powerful Fed funds, but with the effective Fed funds at roughly 0.16%, the mystery about what comes next is, like the price of money, virtually nil.

Yet Bernanke and company may yet surprise us by dropping fresh clues about how the Fed plans to practice unconventional monetary policy from here on out—quantitative easing, to use the phrase of the dismal science. The details are a work in progress, although the immediate goal is still clear: stabilize general price levels.

We won't belabor the issue of deflation today, in part because we've discussed it often in recent months, including here and here. Let's just say that the D risk is still very much with us, and so the Fed has a fair amount of work to do in the months ahead.

The market appears to understand this, at least by way of monitoring Fed funds futures. For the year ahead, all the contracts are expecting Fed funds to remain under 60 basis points, and quite a bit lower for the immediate future.

Long rates remain in a holding pattern as well. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury Note is in the 2.5% range and it may go lower yet, depending on what the next round of inflation reports reveal, although those won't arrive for several weeks.

Meantime, there's plenty of guesswork about what the Fed's next move. "With rates going nowhere for some time, the market's focus will be on whether the Fed will be looking to buy government (or corporate) securities in the near future," Sacha Tihanyi, an analyst at Scotia Capital, opines via AFP.

John Authers in today's FT argues that the critical variable is housing prices. What can the central bank do on that front? "The Fed can give details on quantitative easing— the ugly phrase for the art of buying bonds so as to push down the yields they pay, and stimulate the economy with lower rates, especially for mortgages," he writes. "If there is a single key variable to determine when the crisis in the US banking system can be brought under control, it is house prices. The further they fall, the higher the likely default rate on the mortgage-backed securities that banks now hold on their balance sheets."

Unfortunately, the news on housing prices is still discouraging, even after several years of a falling market. One of the latest bits of housing data shows that prices fell again last month even as sales perked up. Existing home sales rose 6.5% in December, albeit driven by distressed sales at bargain prices, the National Association of Realtors reports. Nonetheless, the median national price of existing homes in the U.S. still dropped by a hefty 15.3% last month.

Even if the Fed is successful in fending off deflation, which we expect it will be, that by itself isn't a cure for what ails the economy. "Ben Bernanke is rightly concerned about deflation right now," Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute explains in The Christian Science Monitor. But that's merely step one in a multi-step recovery program. "Getting inflation back into the system … is not going to be sufficient," Lachman notes.

Convincing banks to lend and consumers and businesses to borrow is arguably the next big step beyond containing the deflation risk. Solving the latter will be easy by comparison. The real challenge will come later this year in trying to promote growth. But first things first, and so we await today's Fed commentary.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Bad Arguments Against Obama's Stimulus Plan

The debate is heating up now surrounding Obama's $825 billion stimulus plan, with conservatives leading the opposition. They are making all kinds of arguments for why the plan won't work, but according to Paul Krugman most of them are bad arguments at best. Seeing as the opposition ranks are pretty small at this point, it just seems like a matter of time till the bill gets passed, and thus a moot point. But just for fun, let's look at a recent article from Krugman, and his response to the objections, curtesy of Mark Thoma at The Economist's View.

How to identify "fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments":

Bad Faith Economics, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.

Some of these arguments are obvious cheap shots. John Boehner ... has already made headlines with one such shot:... he derided a minor provision that would expand Medicaid family-planning services — and called it a plan to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives.”

But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible... So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments... Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.

First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years... and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years. ... The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to ... $60,000...

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all,... surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that ... public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.

This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.

Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.

It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. ... But ... we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.

That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. ...

These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.

But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Existing Home Sales Rise Unexpectedly: Is The End Near?

There has been a lot of talk this morning about the unexpected rise in existing home sales in December, and specifically whether or not it signals the beginning of the end. Unfortunately, we also saw a less positive statistic released: The median home sale price fell 15.3 percent in 2008—the largest drop on record since 1968, according to the Associated Press (AP). So what exactly are we to make of these statistics?

In my mind, this is positive news overall. First and foremost, property values are still too high and they will continue their decline until they reach equilibrium with income levels. That prices dropped so much means that we are ever closer to that point. Increased home sales in December is also a good sign, but one must wonder how much can be attributed to suppressed mortgage rates.

Most homebuyers do not look at the overall cost of the home, but rather focus on how much money they need to put down and the resulting monthly mortgage payment. When mortgage rates were under 5 percent, that dream home was suddenly within reach, and many people came down off the fence to buy. As rates rise again the opposite will happen.

Let’s also not lose site of the fact that thousands of people are losing their jobs every day, and as long as job losses and layoffs are on the rise, it is hard to imagine that the real estate market or any other sector of the economy will recover any time soon. And let’s keep in mind that although home sales increased in December, overall 2008 saw 13 percent fewer home sales than in 2007 and the lowest total since 1997, according to the AP.

This correction was necessary, and we are closer to recovery every day. I wouldn’t get too excited about it yet, as we should expect to see an over-correction before total recovery in this type of market, but as the chart below further illustrates, we are getting closer to what appears to be an historical equilibrium.

*Chart from The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Welcome President Obama: Now About The Economy...

Yesterday was basically one big party, everyone it seemed was excited to welcome in our new President. Now the party is over and it is time for Obama to get to work, and he had better act fast. The economy is struggling mightily and Americans expect, albeit a tad unfairly, that Obama's administration is going to be able to fix the problem. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator paints a dreary picture for the economy over the coming months, while holding out some hope for a recovery, in his blog post below.

Today is the first full day of President Barack Obama's administration and, as everyone knows, the new commander in chief has his work cut out for him. With a fresh start before us in Washington the question on the home front remains: What's up (or down) with the economy?

In broad terms, the answer is obvious, and the numbers only lend statistical support. Clearly, tough times lie ahead, with the next 6 months or so looking set to be the toughest. But how does that square with our proprietary measure of U.S. economic activity (CS Economic Index), which bounced sharply higher in November, the last month with the full compliment of data pieces for calculating this benchmark? What's more, based on preliminary data for December, the November bounce looks set to hold.

Alas, the rise is something of an illusion for the time being since only two factors out of the 17 in our economic index are driving the bounce skyward. Granted, the pair is on steroids trying to bring aid and comfort to the ailing economy. Statistically, the changes in those two factors are enough to push the entire index upward. Even so, those two lone bullish factors alone, unfortunately, aren't likely to spark a recovery of any substance for the foreseeable future. Looking out later in the year offers some hope, but first let's talk about the immediate future.

The two factors doing all the heavy lifting in our economic index are money supply and the interest rate spread. Both were in overdrive in November in terms of generating pro-recovery fuel to an otherwise shrinking economy. The rate spread was particularly bullish, although the growth-oriented bounce from money supply was robust too. Collectively, the pair overwhelmed the negative energy elsewhere in the economy, at least when measured on an average basis.

By rate spread we're talking of the difference between the yield on the 10-year Treasury Note less the effective Fed funds. Thanks primarily to the dramatic fall in Fed funds in November, which continued in December, the rate spread widened sharply and thereby moving definitively into positive territory, which generally is a bullish signal for the economy. Why? Because a positive sloping yield curve—rates are higher as bond maturities lengthen—historically accompanies economic growth. By contrast, a negatively sloping yield curve—rates fall as maturities lengthen—is a sign of distress/economic contraction.

Based on the rate spread, this measure went negative in July 2006 and stayed negative until February 2008, when the spread moved back into positive territory. Looking back, it turns out that the recession warning posed by the arrival of a negative yield curve in mid-2006 was an accurate forecast of an approaching recession, which officially began in December 2007.

Fast forward to November 2008 and the rate spread is telling us that it's now in high gear as an economic stimulus. That is, short rates are extremely low relative to long rates—despite the fact that long rates are also bouncing around at historically low absolute levels. Based on this measure alone, one might be bullish on the immediate future, assuming this was a normal cycle. But as we know, the times are anything but normal and so even the unusually bullish stimulants coming from the money supply and interest rate factors aren't yet dispensing their usually pro-growth influence. The reason is that the negative drag from everything else is, for the moment, still too much to overcome. Indeed, the lagging and coincident factors in our broad economic index are either flat lining or still declining.

The good news is that at some point all the monetary stimulus will take root and promote expansion. All the money has to go somewhere and eventually it'll go into corners of the economy other than banks accounts and T-bills. Banks will one day lend and businesses will borrow. In addition, now that the Obama administration is at the helm, we expect a fresh round of fiscal stimulus to compliment the monetary efforts now running at full speed.

Guessing when all this will produce some measurably positive change in the economy proper is the great question. Given the depth and magnitude of the economic headwind, we're not expecting much for the first half of this year, perhaps longer. Even when signs of growth, or at least stabilization emerge, they're likely to be tenuous, slipping temporarily back into negative territory and keeping everyone on pins and needles.

Recovery worth the name is going to take time, and perhaps a fair degree more time than we've come to expect over the past generation, when growth returned fairly quickly after a downturn.

As such, strategic-minded investors should pace themselves and use the next several quarters productively to restructure their portfolios for the day when the storm passes. As we'll discuss in more detail in the February issue of The Beta Investment Report, the ongoing economic and financial turmoil is wrenching but it also offers substantial opportunities for dynamic asset allocation strategies.

That said, the next several months are undoubtedly going to be rough, replete with surprises, false starts and lots of noise in the markets. Economically speaking, there are still a number of big unknowns lurking in the near-term future too. Investors should brace themselves for more volatility, and at the same time prepare to take advantage of it.

Risk management, in other words, has never been more important, or potentially more rewarding.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

They Better Use This $350 Billion Better Than The Last $350 Billion

Many people are bitter about the way the first $350 billion in TARP funds was used. Some feel that Paulson flat out lied and deceived them. The money wasn't used for what he said it was going to be used for, and now it appears as if we have little if anything to show for it. So why do we want to give them another $350 billion to waste? Mark Thoma takes a look at a recent article by John Berry which looks to address this very question in his blog post below.

John Berry isn't sure that politicians will be willing to provide additional help if the $700 billion in TARP money falls short of what is needed to stabilize the banking system:

Bernanke Tells It Like It Is, Some Don’t Listen, by John M. Berry, Commentary, Bloomberg: This may be as close as we’re going to get to a Fed chairman labeling some in Congress as irresponsible.

Sure, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke was typically careful with his wording in a Jan. 13 speech in London. ... After explaining how the world economy “is critically dependent on the free flow of credit,” Bernanke issued his challenge: “Responsible policy makers must therefore do what they can to communicate to their constituencies why financial stabilization is essential for economic recovery and is therefore in the broader public interest.”

Three days after that speech, 33 of 39 Republican senators ignored Bernanke’s warning and voted against releasing the remaining $350 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program money. (So did eight Democrats...) Fortunately, that left enough supporters, mostly Democrats, to clear the release of the much-needed money.

Too many senators shrugged their shoulders at Bernanke’s wise words. OK, perhaps they didn’t like the way Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had jerked them around... Or maybe they didn’t like something else about the program.

And of course many of their constituents, who have their own financial and job worries as the economy falls deeper into recession, indeed are furious that banks that created the crisis are getting help when it seems ordinary people aren’t.

They aren’t going to be any happier... In all probability, $700 billion won’t be enough. ... At some point, politicians are going to have to stop pandering to their constituents and show leadership by explaining why the economy can’t survive without a banking system.

If more is needed, they are going to have to do more than that, this time they need to articulate a plan that makes sense. Because if they are going to do what Paulson did with the first round and never really explain how the plan is supposed to work, jump back and forth between plans, say a plan are dead and then revive it - maybe - and act haphazardly when banks are in trouble so that nobody knows quite what to expect, then there are better uses for the money.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

An Increasingly Popular Alternative To Layoffs

Companies in the U.S. laid off over 2 million jobs in 2008, but another expense cutting measure which is less often utilized also saw a major increase. A growing number of companies are choosing to cut pay rather than cutting jobs. Layoffs are typically preferred over pay cuts because among other things firms are afraid it might lead to an exodus of top workers. However, in this job market that isn’t a big worry. The last time there were nominal pay cuts was back in the Great Depression according to Price Fishback, an economic historian at the University of Arizona, as stated in the Wall Street Journal.

Because they remove spending capital from consumers while fostering additional fear and uncertainty, pay cuts are bad for the economy just as layoffs are. By now, practically everyone knows someone who has been laid off or had a salary cut, and even if one believes that one’s job is secure, the threat of a pay cut is encouragement to spend less. That said, though pay cuts will always be painful—especially if they become more widespread—they are still preferable over layoffs for consumers and the economy. After pay cuts, workers still have a source of income and don’t need to claim unemployment, which saves taxpayer dollars.

The inauguration is tomorrow, and I’ve never before seen this amount of anticipation for a new President. The state of the economy has brought a great deal of excitement, as many Americans believe that Obama is the man to rescue us from this recession. The thinking seems to be that once Bush is out of the White House and Paulson is out of the Treasury, all will be well. It is great to get excited, and Obama just might be the man to bring us out of this economic darkness, but people should remember that these things take time. Obama isn’t a miracle man, and he isn’t going to magically fix the economy. There is a lot wrong with the economy and there is a huge amount of work that needs to be done. We can hope for a quick turn around, but don’t expect it because it is not likely to happen that way.

Why The "Bad Bank" Is A Bad Idea

There is a lot of momentum gaining right now behind the idea to create a so called, "Bad Bank." This bank would be set up by the government and would be used to take toxic debt off of the balance sheet of the banks like Citigroup and Bank of America. Paul Krugman thinks this "Bad bank" is simply a bad idea. Economics Professor Mark Thoma revisits Krugman's article in his blog post below.

Are policymakers about to take another wrong turn?:

Wall Street Voodoo, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Old-fashioned voodoo economics — the belief in tax-cut magic — has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.

But recent news reports suggest that many influential people, including Federal Reserve officials, bank regulators, and, possibly, members of the incoming Obama administration, have become devotees of a new kind of voodoo: the belief that by performing elaborate financial rituals we can keep dead banks walking.

To explain..., let me describe ... a hypothetical bank that I’ll call Gothamgroup, or Gotham for short.

On paper, Gotham has $2 trillion in assets and $1.9 trillion in liabilities, so that it has a net worth of $100 billion. But a substantial fraction of its assets — say, $400 billion worth — are mortgage-backed securities and other toxic waste. If the bank tried to sell these assets, it would get no more than $200 billion.

So Gotham is a zombie bank: it’s still operating, but the reality is that it has already gone bust. Its stock isn’t totally worthless — it still has a market capitalization of $20 billion — but that value is entirely based on the hope ...[of] a government bailout.

Why would the government bail Gotham out? Because it plays a central role in the financial system. ... Gotham has to be kept functioning. But how can that be done?

Well, the government could simply give Gotham a couple of hundred billion dollars... A better approach would be to do what the government did with zombie savings and loans at the end of the 1980s: it seized the defunct banks, cleaning out the shareholders. Then it transferred their bad assets to ... the Resolution Trust Corporation; paid off enough of the banks’ debts to make them solvent; and sold the fixed-up banks to new owners.

The current buzz suggests ... policy makers aren’t willing to take either of these approaches. Instead, they’re reportedly gravitating toward ... moving toxic waste from private banks’ balance sheets to a publicly owned “bad bank” or “aggregator bank” ... “The aggregator bank would buy the assets at fair value.” But what does “fair value” mean?

In my example, Gothamgroup is insolvent... The only way a government purchase of that toxic waste can make Gotham solvent again is if the government pays much more than private buyers are willing to offer.

Now, maybe private buyers aren’t willing to pay what toxic waste is really worth... But should the government be in the business of declaring that it knows better than the market what assets are worth? And is ... paying “fair value,” whatever that means,... enough to make Gotham solvent again?

What I suspect is that policy makers — possibly without realizing it — are gearing up to attempt a bait-and-switch: a policy that looks like the cleanup of the savings and loans, but in practice amounts to making huge gifts to bank shareholders at taxpayer expense...

Why go through these contortions? The answer seems to be that Washington remains deathly afraid of the N-word — nationalization. ...Gothamgroup and its sister institutions are already ... utterly dependent on taxpayer support; but nobody wants to recognize that fact and implement the obvious solution: an explicit, though temporary, government takeover. Hence the popularity of the new voodoo, which claims, as I said, that elaborate financial rituals can reanimate dead banks.

Unfortunately, the price of this retreat into superstition may be high. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that taxpayers are about to get another raw deal — and that we’re about to get another financial rescue plan that fails to do the job.

This post can also be viewed at economistsview.typepad.com.

Most Americans Support New Stimulus Proposal

House Democrats released the latest version of a new stimulus package meant to turn our struggling economy around. Most notably, the stimulus package swelled from $775 billion to $825 billion with a proposed $550 billion in spending and aid to states and $275 billion in tax cuts, according to CNNMoney. Despite the large price tag, Americans are generally perceived to be on board with the plan, according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. 43 percent of the people surveyed called the plan a “good idea,” while 27 percent said it was a “bad idea.” The remaining portion had no opinion either way.

The most pressing concern for the people surveyed was unemployment, followed by the federal budget deficit which came in at a distant second. 63 percent of the surveyed individuals felt that government spending should be the biggest priority of the bill, while 33 percent felt that tax cuts should be the main catalyst.

It would be interesting to compare this current poll to how people felt about these priorities prior to the last stimulus package. I have a sneaking suspicion that more people would have been in favor of tax cuts back then. Because those didn’t work as planned, people are turning to a different strategy to fix the problem.

President-elect Obama is enjoying unprecedented support for his plan and his administration as Americans look to him to get us out of this mess, but if Obama’s stimulus plan doesn’t get succeed, it will be interesting to see how quickly that support wanes. President Bush once had the highest approval rating ever (90 percent in September 2001), and now has the second lowest approval rating ever, only bested by Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal. The American people are ready for results, and Obama may learn, as George W. did, that opinions can change drastically and quickly.

Division Mounts Among Fed Officials

The swelling balance sheet at the Federal Reserve is causing problems in more ways than one. One Fed official, Philadelphia Fed bank president Charles Plosser, recently went public with his objections against current Fed policies. Plosser’s main objections concern the ballooning balance sheet and the apparent endlessness to the madness. Fed chief Ben Bernanke doesn’t think that the balance sheet is a problem, but Plosser does, and he is ready to take his argument to whoever will listen. The following are excerpts from a MarketWatch article that detail some of Plosser’s concerns:

“Plosser said that the growth of the Fed's balance sheet was a key metric. ‘It is not appropriate to ignore quantitative metrics in this new policy environment,’ Plosser said.”

“Fed officials who pay attention to the money supply believe that the Fed's current policy of printing money never ends well and the danger of inflation is very high. They believe the Fed must withdraw the stimulus before there is any sign of inflation or it is too late.”

“Plosser also argued that the Fed has put its independence at risk by buying long-term assets. He worried that some "interest groups" will try to use political persuasion to stop the Fed from selling these longer-term assets even if the central bank has decided it makes sense.”

“‘We will need to have the political fortitude to make some difficult decisions about when our policies must be reversed or unwound,’ Plosser said. Bernanke said that he would watch this situation closely but didn't expect it to be a ‘significant problem.’"

Plosser isn’t the only one expressing concerns. William Poole, who recently left his position as president of the St. Louis Fed, has also been outspoken about issues with current Fed policies. The following are experts from a MarketWatch article:

“Poole said the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet is unprecedented and research suggests that a surge of inflation is sure to follow. ‘I would say if the policy is not reversed, there is a high probability that the unpleasant risk (of inflation) materializes,’ Poole said in an interview.”

“‘I believe that the Fed should set a hard number—a target that they take seriously for the overall size of the balance sheet,’ he said.”

“Poole said he was very concerned that the Fed could simply lend money to anyone, without constraint.”

“In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe during the Cold War era, economies were inefficient because they had a soft-budget constraint. If a firm got into trouble, the banking system would give them more money, Poole said. The current situation at the Fed seems eerily similar, he said.”

"’What is discipline—where are the hard choices—when does Fed say our resources are exhausted?’ Poole asked.”

Bernanke seems content to continue on the current path, but it should at least be a little concerning that the opposition inside the Fed is becoming more vocal. I would venture to guess that there are others that oppose Bernanke, but they do not have the guts to stand up publicly against him. If things continue to worsen, it will be at least interesting to see how much the opposition ranks swell.

Retail Sales Dissapoint: Impact On Dollar

As expected December retail sales disappointed as more consumers cut back spending thanks to the ailing economy. According to currency expert Kathy Lien, the U.S. will likely see very weak fourth quarter GDP numbers which will lead to the USD falling against some major currencies. But some other currencies have major problems of their own that could counteract this latest poor showing from the U.S. economy. See Kathy Lien's full analysis in her blog post below.

For the 6th month in a row, US consumers have cut back spending. The December consumer spending data tells us that retailers had a very tough time this holiday shopping season. Consumers reduced their spending by 2.7 percent but if you take out year end deals in the auto sector, retail sales actually fell 3.1 percent, the largest decline in at least 16 years. The Grinch really stole Christmas this year and no one is happy about it. Lower gasoline prices continued to drive down gas station receipts, but weaker spending was seen across the board. The worry now is that more retailers will be forced to file for bankruptcy protection and the latest consumer spending reinforces those fears. With more than 1 million Americans out of work in the last 2 months, concern about job security lead to more nimble shopping over the Christmas holidays.

Import prices dropped for the fifth month in a row, but by less than the market had expected.

Expect fourth quarter GDP to be very weak. Retail sales is one of the primary inputs to GDP and the sharp drop in consumer spending suggests that GDP could have fallen as much as 4 percent. The dollar should continue to weaken against the Japanese Yen but the Euro has its own host of problems. There are reports that Ireland may call in the IMF if the economy weakens. This is yet another reason why the ECB could cut interest rates on Thursday.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Fix Housing First: A Plan For Another Real Estate Bubble

Recently a coalition of homebuilders, real estate agents and other housing stakeholders have come together to formulate a plan to fix the economy. For the purpose of making their plan known, they have even created a website: fixhousingfirst.com. They proclaim that the main reason that the economy is so down right now is because the real estate market is being battered. After all, the problems began when housing values started to fall and foreclosures mounted, which exposed troubled mortgage-backed securities. So naturally, if we hope to fix this financial crisis, then we must address the most glaring problem first and foremost, right?

“So what is their big plan,” you ask? To create another housing bubble of course!

Their plan, as written on the website, is outlined below:

1. Enhance the initial Home Buyer Tax Credit:
• Eligible purchases: Primary residences between April 9, 2008, and December 31, 2009.
• Credit amount: 10% of home price capped at 3.5% of FHA loan limits (geographically dependent) — ranging between approximately $10,000 and $22,000.
• Eliminate the recapture — a true tax credit [Here they are referring to the repayment of credit described above. In the previous housing bill there was an interest free loan for first time homebuyers of $7,500.]
• Monetization: credit available at time of closing.
• Available to all home buyers and not just first-time home buyers.
2. Couple the enhanced tax credit with a below market 30-year fixed-rate mortgage for home purchases
• 2.99% rate available for contracts closed between now and June 30, 2009.
• 3.99% rate for contracts closed between June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2009.
3. Continue foreclosure prevention measures to keep people in their homes, help stabilize home prices and bolster the economy.

Restated, they want taxpayers to pay the down payment for homebuyers and subsidize their mortgage payments as well. What would the net effect of this be? Housing would all suddenly become much more attractive and people would buy, pushing prices up. This is exactly what they say will happen, and is what they are striving for. The trouble is that it is an artificial boost to housing prices, which will inevitably lead to another housing bubble. Housing just isn’t worth what it currently costs. That is the simple truth, and a truth that we all need to grasp. Once the subsidies are gone, housing prices will once again fall until they hit their true value point.

If we are looking for a solution to temporarily get us out of this mess, I think this is certainly one plan that will help with that. However, to me it seems like a waste of time and money when in the end we are ultimately going to return to the same place we were before. This plan is not sustainable in any way shape or form, and should not be seriously considered. Then again what did one expect to see from a plan constructed entirely by home builders, real estate agents and other housing stakeholders?

Unemployment Rate Now 7.2 Percent And Rising

The U.S. Labor Department just released the latest jobs report, and—surprise!—it wasn’t pretty. For the first time in the history of the report, there were back-to-back monthly job losses in excess of 500,000—584,000 jobs lost in November, followed by 524,000 jobs in December—bringing the total for 2008 to 2.6 million—the largest yearly drop (by number) since 1945.

"We have a bigger economy now, but even on a proportional basis, the last months have been the worst since [1945]," said Kurt Karl, head of economic research at Swiss Re, according to CNNMoney . "It's just an enormous acceleration of job losses."

It doesn’t end there: In addition to unemployment, there is an increasing number of under-employed workers. The under-employed rate jumped to 13.5 percent, up from 12.6 percent, which is the highest level on record since measurement began back in 1994, according to CNNMoney.

Experts don’t envision things turning around anytime soon either. Tig Gilliam, chief executive of Adecco Group North America, a unit of the world's largest employment firm and Karl both expect about another 1 million jobs to be lost in January and February before the declines begin to shrink to about a 200,000 level in June. Both said stimulus will help, but they doubt that infrastructure jobs will have as quick of a boost as lawmakers hope, according to CNNMoney.

Obama is attempting to enact an economic stimulus plan that will create or save 3 million jobs. In addition to major tax cuts for businesses and consumers, the plan also calls for huge investments in infrastructure. This could help put to work the legions of unemployed construction workers, although experts think that benefits wouldn’t be heeded until the end of the year. Even if that is the case, "Putting money into highways won't by itself end the recession, but it will put a lot of skilled workers back on job," said Ken Simonson, chief economist for The Associated General Contractors of America in a CNNMoney article.

It is difficult not be pessimistic about the employment prospects for Americans, "We're seeing a complete unraveling of the labor market and are on track for getting beyond 10 percent unemployment," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute in a CNNMoney article.

It is hard to envision the government allowing unemployment numbers to surpass 10 percent, but unless they act quickly it is a definite possibility. I think Obama will do everything he can to prevent unemployment from spiraling out of control, but will it ultimately be enough?

Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Fall Short

Surely the $775 billion stimulus plan being proposed by President-elect Obama involves a huge sum of money, but at least one expert thinks that it won't be nearly enough to fix our troubled economy. Economics professor Mark Thoma looks at a recent article written by Paul Krugman that attempts to answer the question of whether Obama's plan will be enough, in his blog post below.

Is the incoming administration's proposed economic recovery plan large enough to get the job done?:

The Obama Gap, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: “I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.”

So declared President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday... He’s right. This is the most dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it could all too easily turn into a prolonged slump.

But Mr. Obama’s prescription doesn’t live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he’s offering ... falls well short of what’s needed. ...

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office came out with its latest analysis of the budget and economic outlook. The budget office says that in the absence of a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would rise above 9 percent by early 2010, and stay high for years to come. Grim as this projection is, by the way, it’s actually optimistic compared with some independent forecasts. ...

[T]he C.B.O. says ... that “economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential.” This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. “Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,” declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more... — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough.

Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect... Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50.

But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts — and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending. ... Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center summed it up in the title of a recent blog posting: “lots of buck, not much bang.”

The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.

Why isn’t Mr. Obama trying to do more?

Is the plan being limited by fear of debt? There are dangers associated with large-scale government borrowing... But it would be even more dangerous to fall short in rescuing the economy. The president-elect spoke eloquently and accurately ... about the consequences of failing to act — there’s a real risk that we’ll slide into a prolonged, Japanese-style deflationary trap — but the consequences of failing to act adequately aren’t much better.

Is the plan being limited by a lack of spending opportunities? There are only a limited number of “shovel-ready” public investment projects... But there are other forms of public spending, especially on health care, that could do good while aiding the economy in its hour of need.

Or is the plan being limited by political caution? Press reports ... indicated that Obama aides were anxious to keep the final price tag on the plan below the politically sensitive trillion-dollar mark. There also have been suggestions that the plan’s inclusion of large business tax cuts, which ... will do little for the economy, is an attempt to win Republican votes...

Whatever the explanation, the Obama plan just doesn’t look adequate to the economy’s need. To be sure, a third of a loaf is better than none. But right now we seem to be facing two major economic gaps: the gap between the economy’s potential and its likely performance, and the gap between Mr. Obama’s stern economic rhetoric and his somewhat disappointing economic plan.

This post can also be viewed at economistsview.typepad.com.

U.S. Household Debt Declines For The First Time

Yes, that headline is correct. U.S. household debt actually decreased in the third quarter of 2008—the first time it has happened since the measurement started being tracked in 1952, according to The Wall Street Journal. While I knew that Americans have a grand propensity to spend freely, I certainly did not know that we have increased our debt load ever quarter of every year for over 50 years. Depending on one’s perspective, this news could be considered wonderful or a complete disaster. On the one side it is great to see Americans finally taking control over their ridiculous debt burdens, but on the other hand the economy desperately needs people to start spending again. Our economy is built on the willingness of consumers to borrow in order to finance the purchase of goods and services. If Americans keep this new found conservative nature, the economy is going to be in for a rough ride, and a serious adjustment period.

Along with decreasing debt loads, Americans are also saving more. Economists are projecting a savings rate between 3 and 5 percent in 2009 according to The Wall Street Journal, a far cry from the negative savings rates to which we have become accustomed to in the U.S. With people less willing to take on new debt to purchase goods and services—and those with money less willing to spend it—the economy will have difficulty rebounding. A majority of the nation’s GDP is generated from consumer spending, so you can bet that the GDP numbers will suffer whenever that consumer spending drops. Until the consumer regains the desire to spend, we are going to be hard-pressed to exit this recession, barring huge government spending of course.

While this news could be viewed negatively, I prefer to look at it in a positive light. It is simply unsustainable for us to continue increasing our debt loads as a way of growing the economy. This strategy is doomed to failure, because it can only succeed if credit is infinite. At some point, though, consumers have to hit their credit limit and the party will end. That time has come for many people thanks to the credit crisis, but even those who can still borrow are increasingly aware that it may not be the best option. The best way to have a sustainable, consumer-driven economy is to base spending on income and savings, not the use of debt. If we can’t afford something, then we shouldn’t buy it. It’s really that simple. For those visual learners here is a classic clip from Saturday night live that pretty much sums the point up:

A Case Against New Tax Cuts

One major debate among economists and politicians is whether or not tax cuts actually stimulate the economy. Yesterday President-Elect Barack Obama shared details about his new economic stimulus plan where he is calling for around $300 billion in tax cuts. Many people are in support of these cuts, however, there is also an opposition side as well. Jeff Madrick is one such opponent, he believes in higher taxes and bigger government. While you certainly do not have to agree with his views, it is interesting to hear his arguments. Economics professor Mark Thoma takes a closer look at Madrick's article, and adds some thoughts in his blog post below.

Jeff Madrick makes the case for government:

No New Tax Cuts, by Jeff Madrick, Boston Review: ...Even Friedman acknowledged that free markets do not adequately supply some public goods, like primary education and roads. ... And there are other strong theoretical arguments to be made for state intervention in areas of information economics, behavioral economics, agency problems..., and institutional economics and the power of the firm.

However, it is possible to look at the question ... empirically rather than theoretically. ... One argument against government is that public spending is unproductive and crowds out private spending. But, time and again, [Peter H. Lindert, a leading economic historian,] found that studies claiming that high taxes reduce economic growth simply did not hold up. ... No matter how he juggled the data, he found no relationship between the growth of GDP per capita and productivity and the level of taxes or the extent of social spending. There is a dramatic “conflict between intuition and evidence,” he writes. ...

Other economists have ... shown that one of the other anti-tax arguments—that it significantly reduces incentives to invest and work—is highly exaggerated. ... Then there is the argument that government is always inefficient. Sometimes it surely is. But Medicare’s administrative expenses consume only 2 or 3 percent of outlays compared to 15 to 20 percent for private medical insurance. The administrative expenses of Social Security, a marvel of efficiency, are miniscule.

Indeed, the economic history of the United States is one of consistent and vigorous government action... Even when government expenditures were low, government established regulations that seriously affected the nation. Thomas Jefferson was one of the early regulators of land-distribution policies, which were radical by any standard we know today... As a consequence, land was widely distributed at a fair price in the nation early on, and speculators (to the degree possible) kept at bay.

State and local government spent on public improvements aggressively in the early 1800s, building canals and roads. By 1850 the United States had one of the the world’s great free primary education systems. Through land donations—a form of spending—the federal government supported the new agricultural and technical colleges, such as MIT and the University of California, Berkeley, and invested heavily in railroads. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, government built the sanitation, water, and sewer systems that made urban life possible. In the 1900s, government built the new high schools necessary for an advancing economy, along with new roads, dams, bridges, and all manner of public works. Look at your own city. After World War II, the federal government built the national highway system, subsidized college for GIs, supplied the polio vaccine, developed the Internet—and on.

That is where tax dollars go. The reason higher-tax nations do well economically is that government spending can and often does succor economic growth. All rich nations today have robust government. ...

America’s to-do list is now very long..., and many, with an unnecessary fear of budget deficits, believe it cannot do what it must. The first step will be to jettison ideology and return to America’s pragmatic roots. That has not happened yet, but push-back has already started...

[Read other pieces in this special economics feature by Dean Baker and Robert Pollin.]

I have argued that targeted tax cuts need to be a part of the stimulus package for a variety of reasons, e.g. the speed with which tax cuts can be implemented, and as part of a portfolio of policies that recognize we aren't sure whether tax cuts or changes in government expenditures work the best to name just two. So I don't agree with the title's call to not cut taxes, in the short-run we may need to lower taxes as part of a recovery package. To the extent that tax cuts support the goal of economic recovery, and do so better than any other option, they are needed. But if the goal of the tax cuts is simply to use the crisis as leverage to exploit a ratchet effect, or at least an asymmetry where taxes can be lowered much easier than they can be raised and hence squeeze government in the future, then that's another matter entirely. Republicans have a history of using crises to try and ram through their favorite policy, e.g.:

Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

That's not the only example from the past, and in the present we've already heard calls to repeal the capital gains tax as a stimulus measure. I'm sure if the GOP could come up with an estate tax repeal argument that sounded even remotely plausible as a stimulus measure, we'd hear that too. So while I can support targeted tax cuts to some degree, I am worried that we'll avoid the tough political battle in the name of expediency, go too far, and compromise the best economic options in order to satisfy ideological demands. (And that is true not only of the magnitude of the tax cuts versus spending other polices such as infrastructure and aid to state and local governments, but also of the type of tax cuts -- I am not thinking of the trickle down variety when I use the word "targeted".)

This blog post can also be viewed at economistsview.typepad.com.

Obama Plans To Stimulate Economy With Big Tax Cuts

President-elect Barack Obama’s plan to fix America’s ailing economy has become a little clearer with the latest announcements. It appears that the biggest cog in the plan will be around $300 billion in tax cuts. Last year President Bush offered around $130 billion in tax rebates, which only briefly helped spark spending. Obama hopes that his measure has a bigger impact, and is electing to structure it in the form of a tax cut than a tax rebate. Along with the consumer tax cuts, Obama is also planning to cut taxes for businesses as well in an attempt to ward off the increasing level of layoffs and hopefully once again spur business investment. In addition to the tax cuts, Obama’s plan calls for around $200 billion to go to cash-strapped states, according to Daily News.

In total, this new economic stimulus plan could cost as much as $775 billion according to the Daily News. I’ll refrain this time from talking about the potential impact of this plan on the ballooning debt load we will likely leave for our children, but we should always remember that in the end someone has to pay for all these bailouts/stimulus packages. What I want to address is whether or not this program stands a chance. I would love to say that I believe that Obama’s plan is going to fix everything, but I’m just not feeling too confident. This plan is an improvement over Bush’s because it is meant to be lasting, not temporary. The rebates spurred spending for a few months, but the economy just continued to slide once the money was gone. Taxpayers were left with a huge bill and little to show for it other than a delayed recession. Obama’s plan could spread the goodwill out over a much larger period, but the question is whether it will be enough to really push us up and out of this economic rut.

About half of the total stimulus package funds are meant to spur job growth, with a goal of 3 million new jobs. In my mind 3 million seems a little high, and a tad unrealistic for us to obtain, but it sure sounds good. If we can get anywhere close to that number we will be doing extremely well. The plan calls for jobs to be created in infrastructure, energy, education and health care according to ABCNews.com. A major concern here should be how past government job creation movements have panned out: “’Time and again history has proven government-centered job creation doesn't work. Under [President] Carter in the late '70s people had all sorts of plans and ignored larger economic realities,’ former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told ABCNews.com.”

“‘In Japan they spent 13 years building an airport no one [once used]. Under the Socialists the French tried over and over again to create jobs and it didn't work. We know what creates jobs and it isn't putting the Treasury Department at the center of American capitalism. We need an investment strategy that supports the private sector and small entrepreneurial businesses,’ he said.”

Will the plan work or not? If past performance is any indicator it seems likely that this will just end up being another futile—and expensive—attempt to rescue the economy. No one wants to sit idly by and do nothing in the midst of this economic turmoil, but we shouldn’t blindly throwing away money at the problem either. This plan is definitely better than the last one put together by President Bush, but will it be enough? I have my fingers crossed, but if they had odds on this in Vegas I wouldn’t be betting for its success.

Looking Ahead To The Bubble Of Tomorrow

As we deal with the consequences of the current asset bubbles popping around us, it is hard to give any thought to future bubbles. However, considering all the recent moves that the government has made, we really do need to pay attention to what their ramifications will be. The things that the government has done are unprecedented, and we should expect the next round of bubbles to be the same. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator talks more in depth about this in his blog post below.

Governments are now working overtime in dispensing monetary and fiscal medicines intended to renew, restore and revive battered economies. In time the aid will quicken the economic heartbeat, although exactly when and to what degree is unknown. The patient has for years gorged on any number of goodies, ranging from the sweet treats of leverage and the candied delights of easy money to roller-coaster thrills of irrational investing.

The party, of course, is over, and the cleanup may go on for some time—probably longer than we expect. In a somewhat haphazard and increasingly desperate effort to ease the current and future pain, governments are dishing out unprecedented rounds of stimulus pills. For obvious reasons, everyone's watching each new step in what promises to be a long run of conventional and unconventional programs intent on propping up economies from east to west, north and south and everywhere in between.

But while the lion's share of attention is on the medicines, what might follow once the patient is no longer in imminent danger of cardiac arrest? In a speculative exercise of considering the possibilities, we offer the following thoughts for the post-crisis world order, which one day will arrive, amazing as it seems at the moment.

* Inflation
Yes, inflation. Strange as it sounds to talk about inflation at a time when deflation seems to be stalking the U.S. economy, it's never too early to think about the natural state of economic affairs. One day (don't ask us when), all this stimulus and its baggage will be yours. Pulling back on the sea of money washing ashore will eventually require the mother of all mopping-up campaigns. Assuming, of course, the Fed and central banks around the world have the stomach for the task.

Make no mistake: pulling back will be tough, very tough. Imagine the scenario a year from now. Let's make a big assumption and say that the economy's showing signs of life and GDP manages to post a modest 1% rise in Q4 2009, with more of the same expected for 2010. Higher interest rates would certainly be warranted, relative to the near-zero levels of the moment. Perhaps much higher rates will be required. But will Bernanke and the boys be willing and able?

The political pressure to keep the stimulus going will probably be immense. Meanwhile, warnings of higher inflation at some point are likely to fall on deaf ears for an extended period. Higher inflation, after all, is just what the Fed wanted by lowering rates so low and so arguments for containing the revival in prices will initially dismissed.

Yes, the inflation beast will work his way back into the director's chair. He always does, and he has a thousand tricks up his sleeve. His task will be all the easier if the deflation mindset takes root, which looks increasingly possible.

Nonetheless, some corners of finance are worried about the longer-term risks. That includes the dollar sellers and the gold buyers. Yes, deflation is a risk, but in the long run history tells us that inflation always comes out on top eventually.

What's more, a sudden change in the weather is hardly beyond the pale. Recall that inflation worries were all the rage earlier this year. Yet that fear quickly gave way to deflation. Expecting smooth and gradual changes on the pricing front may be asking for too much in the 21st century.

* Oil
Just as inflation worries have been banished in recent months, so too are the headline-grabbing predictions of $200 oil. These days, that's a forecast with one too many zeroes.

But let's be clear: the recession-inducing fears that are pushing oil lower these days will eventually abate. That doesn't mean oil will suddenly resume its skyward run at the first sign of economic stability. But marginal growth in oil demand isn't dead; it's merely hibernating.

China, India, and, yes, the United States will one day be in need of more oil. Yes, green technology will slow future demand for fossil fuels. But unless you're expecting miracles, the world economy will almost certainly be consuming more oil in 3 to 5 years compared with today. The crowd, however, will be focused on demand trends over the next year or two and thereby conclude that high oil prices are forever gone. Oil companies will be pressured into agreeing, resulting in a sharp decline in searching for and developing new oil fields. Those are the seeds that will push prices higher once more, perhaps to new all-time heights, although probably not for several years.

* The Bubble of 2013?
No one knows where all the stimulus will wind up, but there are pretty good odds (and a fair amount of historical precedent) suggesting that exuberance will eventually reanimate itself with all its immoderate excess intact. Some say that Treasuries are now a bubble waiting to burst, courtesy of interest rates that can only go higher from here. Perhaps, although it's a safe bet that one day, perhaps sooner than we expect, bubble sightings will return.

Bubbles, writes John Kemp of Reuters, are no accident. "It is the direct consequence of the Fed's asymmetric response to shifts in asset prices." Much will depend on whether the reflation policy is, at the appropriate time, wound up and put in the closet. In theory, it's a no-brainer. In practice, there are complications.

Finally, we bring all this up mainly as a reminder that it's always difficult to maintain strategic perspective. Two years ago, when all the major asset classes were rising, few could imagine the current pain of the moment. Similarly, looking at where we're headed several years from now looks about as relevant as studying the moons of Saturn. But the future keeps coming, even if we're not looking. It's tempting to make all our investment decisions based on what happened yesterday, but we're all probably better off keeping our strategic-investing focus on what's likely to unfold several years from now. No easy task, to be sure. Par for the course if you're intent on winning the investment game.

This post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

Flurry Of Fed Moves Could Lead To Hyper Inflation

In what was a surprising move yesterday, the Fed dropped the Fed funds rate basically to zero, surpassing market expectations. Everyone fears deflation, and the Fed is willing to do whatever it takes to avoid it. But as Toni Straka from The Prudent Investor points out, these drastic moves could soon lead us to hyper inflation.

Share and bond markets rallied on Tuesday after the Federal Reserve announced that it will give away new money for almost free, lowering the Fed Funds target range to a historical low of 0% to 0.25%. The Fed had cut the Fed Funds rate in late October by 50 basis points. The new record low rate is a reaction to to the de facto status quo in treasury securities where short maturities of up to 6 months trade at yields below the upper end of the target range.

In a most unusual move the Fed provided publishable background on its decision, writes the WSJ blog, detailing it all here. The Fed has not held press briefings until now.

While markets welcomed the bold move, gold, the canary in the mine of inflation, advanced as well, piercing the important resistance at $850. Investors are obviously pricing in that all Treasuries yield less than the inflation rate of currently 3.7% YOY.

But the move to a zero interest rate policy will come at the cost of higher inflation in 2009 and 2010, it can be safely predicted. Chairman Ben Bernanke and his fellow Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) members pulled out all stops in order to jumpstart the economy and assured market participants that the Fed would continue to engage in the dubious game of printing fresh money for collateral it does not want to talk about.

Once more proving their image of inflationistas par excellence the FOMC said the Fed can be expected to hold on to its free money policy for quite some time and use all tools to promote a return to growth.

The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth and to preserve price stability. In particular, the Committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.

But money for nothing alone will not help, the Fed reasoned, preparing markets for more growth in the Fed's balance sheet after it has exploded from $800 billion to $2.2 trillion since last summer. Expect the Fed to continue to buy more worthless MBS (mortgage backed securities) while substituting the banking sector in the commercial paper market.

The focus of the Committee's policy going forward will be to support the functioning of financial markets and stimulate the economy through open market operations and other measures that sustain the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet at a high level. As previously announced, over the next few quarters the Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and it stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant. The Committee is also evaluating the potential benefits of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities. Early next year, the Federal Reserve will also implement the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses. The Federal Reserve will continue to consider ways of using its balance sheet to further support credit markets and economic activity.

I translate this into "we will throw (fiat) money (that costs us next to nothing) on every problem as we did in the past 2 decades." See more worthless money created that will be exchanged for more MBS that are valued on a theoretical basis, i.e. not the market price which may be only a tiny fraction of the initial face value.

The announcement that the Fed is looking into buying longer term US Tresuries raises immediate fears that the Fed will be monetizing the federal debt again after a portfolio shift towards MBS in the recent past. Any talk about deflation misses the point of unprecedented monetary inflation that will show up in the real economy 2009/10.

Eric de Carbonnel argues at DollarDaze that monetary inflation does not even have to pump up money supply - my favorite theory - but that it is a loss of confidence that increases the velocity of money, resulting in the dange of hyper inflation.

The record low official Fed Funds rate may be elusive though. Jake at EconomPicData sees a disconnect between municipal bonds and Treasuries, reflecting the horrendous outlook for cash strapped communities which had invested heavily in property debt. Now they are broke.

GRAPH: The yield spread between Munis and 5-year Treasuries soared to a record high of 325 basis points. Graph courtesy of EconomPicData.

DollarDaze draws a historical comparison that shows deflation can be a hazy illusion.

As an example of deflation leading to hyperinflation, consider the case of the Weimar Republic. In 1920, Germany experienced a deflationary collapse, with the average citizen finding it harder and harder to get enough money for necessities. Banks, short of money, could not honor checks, and businesses were strapped for cash to buy materials and meet payroll. Fearing a collapse that would throw millions of workers out on the street, the German government desperately printed money in an attempt to re-inflate the economy. During this period, despite the government's money printing, the mark actually gained in value against foreign currencies, so that prices of imported goods fell by some 50%.

Eventually, as a result of the money supply's rapid expansion, the nation's massive foreign debt, and the shrinking economy, German citizens lost all confidence in their currency, and the Weimar Republic experienced one of the worst cases of hyperinflation in modern economic history.

Check out the time series of the Weimar hyper inflation - with the interim "correction" before it went parabolic - here.

The new policy to lend money to banks for free shows that the Fed is obviously willing to monetize all debt problems that come along. With its seven new financing tools introduced since the beginning of the crisis in August 2007 the Fed is already intervening in MBS markets and tries to keep the commercial paper market afloat.

But after all these attempts are nothing more than new fiat money with a different ribbon. The road to hyper inflation is clearly visible as were most problems already more than 3 years ago.
Time will show whether the Fed has been correct in its view of current conditions. Taking it from the past 15 months the Fed has been behind the curve despite its fast moves. It is to be doubted that the increasing readiness to prop up all markets with new money will mitigate the crisis. It will rather delay it but the point of no return comes closer with every day. Central banks have a bad record of containing inflation once they set the process into motion willingly.

But these facilities have not brought the liquefying effect the Fed had hoped for. So far all attempts to revive credit markets have failed, observes not only Bloomberg, which has all the details on Tuesday's rate decision.

This post can also be viewed on prudentinvestor.blogspot.com.

Consumer Prices Show Record Fall: Fight Against Deflation Heats Up

Consumer prices are continuing to fall, even setting new records. This is of course heating up discussion about deflation, which is a horror no one wishes to see. Bernanke and the Fed are going to do everything they can to prevent deflation from coming, but with this crazy economy who knows if they will have the wherewithal to do so. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator dives deeper into the issue in his blog post below.

For the second month running, consumer prices fell. And by more than a little, invoking the specter of deflation once again.

CPI slumped by a hefty 1.7% in November on a seasonally adjusted basis, the government reports today. That follows October's 1.0% fall. More dramatically, last month's tumble is the deepest monthly decline in CPI since the Labor Department began keeping records on this series in 1947. Meanwhile, MarketWatch.com reports that the 1.9% non-seasonally adjusted fall in CPI is the steepest monthly rate since January 1932—the height of the Great Depression.

Meanwhile, core CPI (which strips out food and energy) is unchanged, following a slight decline in October. As this is the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, even a central banker can't deny that inflationary pressures have evaporated, at least for the time being.

Looking at the more familiar year-over-year calculation of headline CPI, consumer inflation is still positive, running at 1.0% for the 12 months through November. Even so, that's down sharply from October's annual rate of 3.7%. At this rate, CPI will soon be falling on an annual basis too.

As striking as the news is, a decline of some magnitude in CPI was expected, partly based on the earlier report of the ongoing decline in producers prices. Nonetheless, the sight of broad price indices sinking month after month in both the consumer and wholesale markets raises the question of whether this is merely a temporary state or something with more endurance?

We've been writing about rising deflation risk for some months now, and it's clear that the beast is here. It's still unclear how long it lasts, and so for the moment one can be optimistic that an unhealthy downward spiral in prices isn't fate.

Keep in mind that the massive monetary stimulus engineered by the Fed has only partly filtered into the economy. Monetary policy has a fair amount of lag time, perhaps a year or more. With each passing month, the aggressive liquidity injections will work deeper into the consumer and business sectors. Few expect a sudden rebound in spending and lending, but at this point simply keeping prices steady would be no small accomplishment.

Another reason to think that prices may soon stabilize comes from the fact that heavy drops in energy prices are currently leading CPI's descent. The energy component of consumer price inflation has lost ground for four months straight, with November's whopping 17% fall the biggest so far. But energy prices can't keep falling off a cliff month after month. Yes, the world economy is headed for tough times, which is paring demand for oil, gasoline and other fuels. But the lion's share of the price cutting relative to the highs of last summer is behind us.

There may yet be more declines in energy coming. In fact, we expect as much. But the magnitude of future declines, if any, will almost surely be smaller. Nor is it unreasonable to expect that energy prices generally will soon tread water, albeit at substantially lower levels compared with recent history.

As for the other components of CPI, well, that's another story. The transportation slice of consumer prices retreated by nearly 10% last month—the fourth month in a row of red ink. Housing prices are weakened last month, although just barely. But not every is posting price discounts. Prices for food, apparel, education/communication and medical care all managed to rise last month. Deflation hasn't yet infected everything, and therein lies more reason for hope.

Still, no one will wonder why Fed funds futures are pricing in a 50-basis-point cut at the Fed's FOMC meeting later today. If accurate, that would bring the target Fed funds down to 0.5%. As extraordinary as a 0.5% will be in historical terms, at this point it's something of a formality to reflect reality since the effective Fed funds (which is based on actual banking activity) is already at a scant 0.14%.

In sum, the war to head off inflation is in full swing. The Fed can't afford to fail in this battle. Allowing deflation to build a head of steam at this point is tantamount to economic suicide. It must be stopped, even at the risk of letting inflation out of the bag down the road. Controlling inflation, after all, is well understood, even if the political will isn't always there. Fighting deflation, by contrast, is far tougher and so preemptive medicine is preferred.

The challenge before us is defeating deflation with unconventional monetary policies, supported by aggressive fiscal stimulus. Since there's not a lot of precedent for the former, one might reason that the fiscal side of the ledger will have to do the heavy lifting, which necessarily depends on the political process. 'Nuff said.

Yet the task is not insurmountable. Indeed, monetary and fiscal policies will be that much more effective if consumer prices merely stabilize in the coming months, or at least stop dropping so rapidly. But that, as they say, is a big "if." Stay tuned.

The full post can also be viewed on capitalspectator.com.

What Is The Point Of Bailing Out The Automakers If We Don't Want Their Cars?

The big decision looming right now is whether or not we should bail out the big three American automakers, and if so how should it be structured? There is a lot of talk about why we should, and why we should not bail them out, but little is made of one very important fact: we don't want the cars they are making. Why should we bail out automakers if we don't even like the product they are making? Mark Thoma from the Economist's View looks at this problem in his blog post below.

Labor costs aren't the biggest problem automakers face, the problem is making cars people want to buy:

$73 an Hour: Adding It Up, by David Leonhardt, NY Times: Seventy-three dollars an hour. That figure — repeated on television and in newspapers as the average pay of a Big Three autoworker — has become a big symbol in the fight over what should happen to Detroit. To critics, it is a neat encapsulation of everything that’s wrong with bloated car companies and their entitled workers.

To the Big Three’s defenders,... the number has become proof positive that autoworkers are being unfairly blamed for Detroit’s decline. “We’ve heard this garbage about 73 bucks an hour,” Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said... “It’s a total lie...”

So what is the reality...? ... The calculations show ... that ... the ... $73 ... is the combination of three very different categories. The first category ... includes wages, overtime and vacation pay, and comes to about $40 an hour. ... The second category is fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. ... At the Big Three, the benefits amount to $15 an hour or so.

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. ... Honda’s or Toyota’s (nonunionized) workers ... make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.

The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs... — dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so — and end up at roughly $70 an hour.

The crucial point, though, is this $15 isn’t mainly a reflection of how generous the retiree benefits are. It’s a reflection of how many retirees there are. The Big Three built up a huge pool of retirees long before Honda and Toyota opened plants in this country. ...

These retirees make up arguably Detroit’s best case for a bailout. The Big Three and the U.A.W. had the bad luck of helping to create the middle class in a country where individual companies — as opposed to all of society — must shoulder much of the burden of paying for retirement. ...

[L]abor costs, for all the attention they have been receiving, make up only about 10 percent of the cost of making a vehicle. ...[T]he Big Three already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies... Even so, many Americans no longer want to own the cars being made by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. ...

There is good reason to keep G.M. and Chrysler from collapsing in 2009. ... The economy is in ... recession... You can think of the Detroit bailout as a relatively cost-effective form of stimulus. It’s often cheaper to keep workers in their jobs than to create new jobs.

But Congress and the Obama administration shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that they can preserve the Big Three in anything like their current form. Very soon, they need to shrink to a size that reflects the American public’s collective judgment about the quality of their products. ... If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have bought more of their cars.

With demand falling, carmakers somewhere will have to shrink, at least until the world economy recovers. And as the market tightens, automakers in other countries are beginning to ask for their own bailouts:

Volkswagen: if the American carmakers can get bailout funds, so can we, Credit Writedowns: It seems that the bailouts are now turning into a “Beggar Thy Neighbor” policy of aid for specific sectors of the global economy. First, it was finance as the banks were savaged by massive writedowns to their property and derivative holdings — with each nation competing with the next for the largest handouts to this vital sector of the economy.

Now, as the real economy has started to plummet, it is the auto sector. While all eyes are peeled on Washington and Detroit after the $15 billion bailout there, Volkswagen has quietly been lobbying the German government for its own bailout.

This is looking a lot like competitive bailout schemes as Daimler wants in as well. I can only imagine what Honda, Nissan and Toyota are thinking. Is this the 21st century version of competitive currency devaluations?

Below is my translation of a “Die Welt” article published just yesterday detailing Volkswagen’s manoeuvrings. ...

As you can see from this blurb, Daimler feels disadvantaged by the free money that VW is looking to get and I am certain all foreign car makers want to level the playing field with Detroit after they Americans have received massive injections of state aid. It looks like this process is just beginning. ...

Speaking of Germany:

Paul Krugman: ...Everyone here seems to be talking about two things: the fate of the auto industry, which is in almost as much trouble in Sweden as it is in the United States, and the German problem. At a time when expansionary policies are desperately needed, the leaders of Europe’s largest economy seem to have their heads in the sand. This is a huge problem: there are large spillovers in fiscal policy among EU nations — that is, a significant fraction of, say, French fiscal expansion ends up promoting employment in Germany or Italy rather than France. So there’s a crying need for a coordinated policy. But the Germans aren’t participating.

It will be interesting to see how coordinated the world response will be (for both monetary and fiscal policy), and how many countries will free-ride on the stabilization effort of their trading partners. If enough countries free-ride — and there is an incentive to low-ball the effort and let other countries do the heavy lifting — the total stimulus may be insufficient and undermine the recovery effort.

This article has been reposted from the Economist's View. The full post can also be viewed on the Economist's View.

Removing Sales Tax Is The Best Stimulus Plan

President-elect Obama is intent on stimulating the economy once he takes office, and while he has a couple different plans the big one everyone is talking about is the infrastructure rebuild. Many people have questioned whether this is the best plan of action, but if rebuilding the infrastructure isn't the best course of action, what is? Mark Thoma from the Economist's View looks at an opinion from Susan Woodward and Bob Hall in his blog post below.

Susan Woodward and Bob Hall have expanded their views on the type of stimulus package they believe would be the most effective:

Options for Stimulating the Economy, by Susan Woodward and Robert Hall: In 2009, GDP in the U.S. is expected to be about $900 billion below its normal growth path. The ideal stimulus would have most of its effect in 2009 and would close a reasonable fraction of that gap. We see five general strategies for stimulus:

• Further expansion by the Fed
• Income tax cuts with rebates, as earlier this year
• Tax cuts that reduce the prices of consumer goods temporarily
• Tax cuts that reduce the cost of labor to businesses
• Increase in purchases of goods and services by state and local governments

... Conclusions We foresee a mixture of stimulus policies for the coming year. Monetary policy can only [add] a small further contribution. Income-tax rebates seem to have little support and would probably have relatively small effects within the year, with undesirable continuing effects in later years. We are enthusiastic about removing sales taxes for the year and perhaps somewhat longer, with a phase-out. We are not sure that an employment stimulus from a reduced business payroll tax would raise employment enough to be a contender as a stimulus and to prevent the flowing through of the funds to business owners rather than workers. We believe that some federal subsidies to state and local spending would make sense, but are concerned that too large a program would result in stimulus continuing past the time when it would be needed and that it would create excessive rents for contractors and skilled workers. Thus the sales-tax buyout seems to be the best way to spend the bulk of the stimulus dollars.

In the accompanying argument, they explain their lack of enthusiasm for infrastructure spending:

President-elect Obama supports federal funds for state and local construction projects as an element of a stimulus package. ... Government units have backlogs of projects waiting for funding. The questions are how big are the backlogs, how quickly spending can accelerate, and how beneficial are the projects.

State and local construction spending is currently $300 billion per year. The Obama team is hard at work trying to find out how much of a backlog is “shovel-ready”... We are not aware of any easy source for this information.

Timing may be a problem, as it was in the old days when these kinds of projects were called public works. Complicated projects take time to ramp up... Some interstate repairs can be executed in a year, as was the case in rebuilding the collapsed I-35 bridge in Minneapolis last year and in re-opening earthquake-damaged freeways in Los Angeles in 1994, while it took many years to reopen all the damaged roads in San Francisco after the 1989 earthquake.

The president-elect has also mentioned less conventional spending programs, including broadband facilities and online medical records facilities.

All of these proposals for stimulating state and local spending suffer from a common problem–they will end up generating employment for highly specialized businesses and workers, rather than stimulating economic activity more broadly. The consensus of macroeconomists ... is that a spending stimulus raises total spending by between 1.0 and 1.5 times the amount of the direct increase in spending. The follow-on or multiplier effects are between zero and half the direct increase in spending. Thus a program that funnels money to construction firms and their workers mainly raises their incomes and employment levels and has relatively little effect elsewhere. Rebuilding aging interstates and upgrading the energy efficiency of public buildings calls for highly specialized skills. A large-scale infrastructure program will drive up the profits of the limited number of firms capable of doing this type of work and drive up the wages of the skilled workers who know how to do the work.

It’s hard to imagine that a significant fraction of the large stimulus under consideration for 2009 will take the form of state and local construction and other infrastructure spending. We are hoping that discussion of stimulus will not become sidetracked over this part of the program and neglect the opportunities to stimulate consumer spending broadly without complicated, detailed, and time-consuming decisions.

This article has been reposted from the Economist's View. The full post can also be viewed on the Economist's View.

People And Businesses Get Creative To Get By

I happened to read two separate stories this morning on CNN.com, both of which made me do a double take. These are two great examples that show just how bad things are in the economy right now, as well as the creativity that people have. The first article was about a school teacher who had his budget cut so dramatically that he could no longer afford to print out tests and quizzes, but using his creativity he was able to make. The other article talks about the dire condition of the auto industry, and specifically what local dealerships are doing in order to scrape by.

The first story is both an example of innovation in the face of desperation and the poor state of our educational system. The title of the article sums up the story fairly well: “Cash-strapped teacher sells ads on tests.” A teacher in California saw his printing budget cut so dramatically that he no longer could afford to print out quizzes and tests for his class. Instead of simply cutting back on the number of tests, thereby dropping the quality of education, he chose to do something about it and approached parents and local business owners to sponsor quizzes and tests. By placing ads on the tests the teacher was able to raise more than enough money to cover the printing costs for the tests.

While I applaud the creativity of this teacher, and his willingness to go above and beyond to ensure his students receive the best education possible, it is frustrating that it had to come to this. How is it that the richest country in the world can’t even afford to pay printing costs for tests? We are throwing billions—if not trillions—of dollars around like it is nothing, but we can’t spare a few hundred bucks per classroom to make sure our kids get a proper education? Children already have a hard time concentrating, and putting advertisements on their tests, when they should be focusing the most, is not the answer. Talk about a horrible time to be a child—Merry Christmas, kids. This year you get $8 trillion in debt and a sub-par education. Good luck!

The second story is titled, “Car dealers get creative as brethren shutter shops.” This article talks about all the creative things local dealerships are doing to stay in business. One of the most widely talked about offers was by a car dealership in Miami that is offering a buy-one-get-one-free promotion. Interest in new cars has fallen so much that dealerships are doing whatever it takes to drum up business.

I have my doubts that they will be able to sustain these types of promotions for long. Dealerships take out millions of dollars in loans to stock their lots, and at this point nothing is moving, forcing them to take these extreme measures just to avoid shutting down entirely. In addition there are the problems with the big three U.S. automakers to worry about. If these companies are forced to start restructuring, some dealerships fear that banks will not be so willing to lend them the money they need to continue to operate.

Here Come More Interest Rate Cuts

Central banks from around the world are cutting interest rates in dramatic fashion in an attempt to curtail the financial crisis. If these record interest rate cuts will help remains to be seen, but it seems that the world's central bankers feel it is their best hope. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan made talks more about these rate cuts in his blog post below.

Now's not the time to be timid if you're a central banker or an elected official. Day after day they watch a once vibrant world economy sink deeper into an abyss caused by a massive credit contraction following the collapse of multiple asset bubbles.

Central banks all around the world were busy today slashing interest rates with abandon:

• Bank of England -------------- cut 100 basis points to 2.0 percent
• European Central Bank -- cut 75 basis points to 2.5 percent
• Sweden's Riksbank ---------- cut 175 basis points to 2.0 percent
• Bank of New Zealand ------- cut 150 basis points to 5.0 percent
• Bank of Indonesia ------------ cut 25 basis points to 9.25 percent
  

Earlier in the week, Australia's central bank cut short-term interest rates by 100 basis points to 4.0 percent and Thailand slashed by a full percentage point.

Tumbling home prices and a rapidly weakening economy have created a near state of panic in the U.K. that makes the situation in the U.S. somehow look tame by comparison. Short term rates have fallen by 300 basis points in less than two months and they now sit at their lowest level since 1951.

On the continent, the fifteen countries that use the euro got their biggest interest rate cut in the common currency's 10-year history as the central bank attempts to mop up after collapsing housing bubbles in Spain and Ireland while also dealing with major economic slowdowns in Germany and Italy. The French just announced a $33 billion stimulus package.

Herding cats has never been more difficult.

The Swedish central bank couldn't wait for their regularly scheduled mid-December meeting and hastily made their biggest rate cut in 16 years in an attempt to combat a recession that officially began two months ago. The government also announced a $4 billion stimulus plan.

In New Zealand, rates were slashed by a record 1.5 percentage points and Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard indicated there are more, smaller cuts to come. The kiwis entered a recession back in the first quarter of the year and short-term rates have been slashed from 8.25 percent over the summer to just 5.0 percent.

In Indonesia, both interest rates and inflation (~12%) are still quite high and the central bank has received some criticism for making its first rate cut in over a year. They were no doubt influenced by the full-point rate cut in Thailand a few days ago.

The day is still young - there may be more rate cuts to come.

This article has been reposted from The Mess That Greenspan Made. The full post can also be viewed on The Mess That Greenspan Made.

California's Budget Problems Getting Worse: Schwarzenegger Declares Emergency

The largest state economy in the nation has declared a state of emergency due to budgetary shortfalls. The governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, seems desperate at this point in his request for aid from Washington. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made comments on this in his blog post below.

Things are deteriorating rapidly in the Golden State and the band-aid budget solutions of just a few months ago are quickly revealing themselves to be wholly inadequate in dealing with what is now a major hemorrhaging in California's fiscal condition.

As reported in the LA Times, the gubernator went public yesterday, declaring a "fiscal emergency" and ordering legislators back to work in order to find a solution to the current cash-flow situation that would have the state running out of money in just a couple months.

The budget shortfall is now somewhere between $11 billion and $28 billion, depending upon how it is calculated, and, given the current trajectory of the state's housing market and economy, things are likely to get much worse before they get better.

Of course, they really have only one practical choice here - a bailout from Washington.

According to this Washington Post story, those wheels have already been set in motion with almost $200 billion of the upcoming Obama Administration stimulus package being requested by the states to help square their books.

This once again prompts the question, "Who's going to bail out Washington?"

This article has been reposted from The Mess That Greenspan Made. The full post can also be viewed on The Mess That Greenspan Made.

The True Cost Of The Bailout

So how much is the bailout really costing us? Figures have ranged from a few hundred billion to over $7 trillion, what are we to believe? Economics professor Mark Thoma looks at a couple views on the topic and adds some additional insight in his blog post from the Economist's View below.

With respect to estimates concerning the total cost of the various bailouts, etc. for the financial system, in particular whether the spending should be treated as an expenditure or an investment, Steve Waldman says:

Expenditure vs investment — thinking clearly: ...Paul Kedrosky is a reasonable fellow, and takes care to note that the numbers "are in current dollars, and all treat expenditures and investments as equivalent." Kevin Drum is even more reasonable:

This stuff has gotten completely out of hand, with "estimates" of the bailout these days ranging from $3 trillion to $7 trillion even though the vast bulk of this sum comes in the form of loan guarantees, lending facilities, and capital injections. The government will almost certainly end up spending a lot of money rescuing the financial system (I wouldn't be surprised if the final tab comes to $1 trillion over five years, maybe $2 trillion at the outside), but it's not $7 trillion or anything close to it. People really need to stop throwing around these numbers as if the bailout is comparable to World War II or something. That's not reality based, folks.

But reasonable and right are sometimes different... We have some idea what we paid for, for example, with the $851,000,000,000 for NASA. We bought space shuttles, satellite systems, a moon shot, planetary probes, a lot of research and development, some air bases and research facilities.

What are we buying when the government purchases mortgage-backed securities, or buys preferred shares of banks that can only pay if a portfolio of real-estate loans does not totally sour? We are buying "paper", right?

No. We are not buying paper. ... All of the iffy securities that are weighing down the banking system represents money already spent on real projects or consumption. When the government purchases a security, it is taking the place of the party that originally fronted money for that expenditure. Every penny of government "investment" is retroactive expenditure on housing, real-estate, consumer credit, whatever.

If a government were to borrow funds in order to build a new stadium, we'd call that an "expenditure", even if we fully expect use fees and incremental tax revenues to eventually turn a profit for the fisc. Politicians supporting the project would call it an "investment", quite justifiably. But the project would still count as government spending.

If a private party builds the same stadium, and then is reimbursed by the government in exchange for rights to future revenue, that doesn't change the economic substance of the transaction at all. But in the second case, the government would buy "paper" — it would enter into a contract trading current government funds for future revenues. That "security" doesn't make the transaction any more or less an investment than if the government had purchased the stadium itself.

So, in economic substance, the government is currently spending through a financial time machine on the exurban subdivisions and auto loans of several years past. ...

I hope that the infrastructure we build next year turns out to be a wise investment, both in financial and use-value terms. It might be, but just because we hope to recoup the cost, we won't pretend that no money was actually spent. We'll call the whole thing an expenditure, even though that will probably overstate the ultimate burden. But if a power grid counts as an expenditure on government books, so should a security derived from a mortgage or credit card loan made two years ago. You ... can't claim that securities are "investments" while a power grid, or NASA, or even World War II are mere "expenditures". ...

Figures of 7 or 8 trillion dollars recently bandied about by the Communists at Bloomberg are overstated, since they do not distinguish between expenditures and guarantees, which are contingent liabilities. The government's contingent liabilities aren't usually counted as spending until the contingency has been triggered. But the amount of money already spent or committed on "financial investments" to date is more than $3 trillion dollars, and it is perfectly right to call that government spending on the financial bail-out.

The scale of the largely unlegislated current government program to save the financial system is breathtaking and quite unprecedented. Taxpayers might be made whole, in financial terms, or might reap sufficient dividends in terms of suffering avoided to justify the program. But don't let anyone convince you that the scale of this intervention is "overstated" because it is all "investment". NASA and the Marshall Plan were investments too, and pretty good ones.

But shouldn't the example be a little different? If the private sector builds, say, a stadium and then the government buys it, then yes, that is expenditure. But suppose the government purchase comes with a clause that says it will sell the stadium back to the private sector at a date certain (or by a date certain). It's still an expenditure of the same amount in the present, but the purchase price does not represent the expected long-run burden of the transaction, and isn't that what we really care about? The government plans to sell the financial paper, not hold it forever, and what really matters is how much the paper will be worth in the future (if the stadium value falls to zero, then the current expenditure does represent the long-run burden; however, the value of the government holdings will not fall to zero or anything even close to that).

So I don't care what you call it, expenditure, investment, a repo, temporary custody of a volatile asset, whatever, what I care about is how much the bailout will cost once the government has disposed of all of the assets it has purchased. That's not something we can know with certainty, but unless the value of the securities the government is holding falls much, much further than anyone expects, the amount of the current expenditure greatly overstates the long-run burden.

This article has been reposted from the Economist's View. The full post can also be viewed on the Economist's View.

$2 Trillion In Consumer Credit Lines Could Be Cut, Spelling Disaster

It is no secret that the U.S. economy runs on credit, and has for some time. When credit flowed freely, our economy boomed. When credit became restricted, our economy started crumbling and turned into what we see today. As we attempt to rebuild our beleaguered economy the last thing we need is a cut in available consumer credit. But according to at least one analyst we could soon be faced with that reality. Prominent banking analyst Meredith Whitney was quoted by Reuters as projecting consumer credit to be cut by as much as $2 trillion over the next 18 months.

To make matters worse, the outlook for the job market isn’t looking any better. People are losing jobs right and left, and now they could be faced with cuts to their credit lines as well. From the bank’s perspective, it makes sense to cut credit lines now. With people racking up record debts, and some having no means to repay them, the risks are extremely high. The responsible thing for banks to do is to cut credit lines for those consumers who show any signs of causing trouble down the road.

From an economic view, though, we need to boost spending any way we can. Consumer spending makes up the largest portion of economy and consumer spending must improve before the economy can rebound. The fact that jobs are being lost and credit lines cut means that consumer spending will be likely to tank. When that happens business will suffer, leading to more layoffs and an even bigger hit to consumer spending. I think you can see the vicious cycle that is being formed here.

You can bet that Obama and the new administration will do whatever they can to jump start spending. This would include the stimulus package that is being considered, as well as placing added pressure on banks to increase lending.

Another $800 Billion Committed: Crisis Tally Tops $8 Trillion

Yesterday on Bloomberg, I saw a disturbing article that disclosed that the government had already committed $7.76 trillion to fix the credit crisis. This number was staggering to me. I write about this stuff every day and yet even I didn’t realize the tally had gotten that high. The $7.76 trillion number includes the over $300 billion committed to Citigroup, but another $800 billion to free up the credit markets was announced this morning. So far this week—which isn’t even two days old yet—the tally has already surpassed a trillion dollars. This is absolutely insane, and you can bet that there will be more where that came from once the new administration takes over.

I don’t know about you, but these numbers are freaking me out. Sure a lot of these commitments have an investment component, but I don’t believe claims that we will make a bunch of money from these deals. I would consider us lucky if we are able to recover the principal. Things have only gotten worse of late, and we seem prepared to throw as much money at the problem as needed, so what will the final tab be? When will this spending spree stop?

Obama is prepared to open up the taxpayer checkbook when he takes office, recently announcing plans to roll out a new stimulus package estimated to cost $500 billion to $700 billion according to CNN. In addition, his selection for Treasury Secretary, Geithner, has had a huge part in the economic decisions made by Treasury Secretary Paulson, and it seems unlikely that he will stray far from the current path. With these combined factors, we could face countless trillions more before all is said and done. Where is this going to leave our children?

The answer to that question of course is that our children will be unfairly burdened by an absolutely enormous debt. Their financial prospects will be dim as they are forced to deal with higher taxes and other restrictive policies. Personally I find this completely unacceptable, and I hope beyond hope that it doesn’t come to that. I’ve mentioned this before in some of my posts, but to knowingly leave a burden such as this on the future generation is immoral to the fullest extent. We need to pay for our own mistakes, and our own excessive lifestyles. Our children have enough to worry about, and paying for the previous generation’s debt shouldn’t be one of them.

Why Have Homeowners Been Forgotten?

As part of the latest directional shift in the allocation of the bailout funds being managed by Hank Paulson, it seems homeowners have once again been overlooked. The bailout funds which were originally intended to boost the lending markets have now been earmarked to boost bank balance sheets. Paulson and Bernanke seem much more concerned with propping up failing banks than homeowners at this point. Anthony Freed from Your Mortgage or Your Life even goes so far as to call them liars. You can read more about this in his blog post below.

Two months ago, in late September, I penned a piece titled Liars, and the Lying Lies They Are Telling You, which examined just one single publicly available FDIC document from 2002 which shows beyond any doubt that the Feds were not only aware of the problems in the finance industry that have led to near economic collapse today, they were already convinced that there would soon be dire repercussions.

Yet, today we have Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his mini-me Neel Kashkari, as well as a host of other top Federal officials, testifying under oath that the threats to our economic security were not immediately apparent until just months ago - hence the gun-to-the-head threats that produced the biggest bailout of private industry in history, while prescribing less governance on the application of those funds than is required to redeem a typical twenty-cent manufacturers coupon for kitty-litter.

Now we will see Barney Frank and others on the Hill posture and shuffle, as they feign attempts to look like they are in control of anything whatsoever, and they will act surprised that they had handed Paulson and his boy a blank check, and they is spending it as they sees fit.

Well, there should be no surprise there if they actually took the time to read the legislation they passed.

Paulson, who is overseeing the bailout program for the Bush administration, changed course and announced last week that the government would not use any of the money to buy rotten mortgages and other bad assets from banks. That had been the centerpiece of the plan when Paulson and Bernanke originally pitched it to lawmakers.

“Our assessment … is that this is not the most effective way” to use the bailout money, Paulson said at that time.

Instead, Paulson said the department would focus on rolling out a capital injection program to pour $250 billion into banks in return for partial ownership stakes in them.

The idea behind the capital injection program is for banks to use the money to rebuild reserves and lend more freely to customers. However, banks do have the leeway to use the money for other things, such as buying other banks or paying dividends to investors. That has touched a nerve with some lawmakers. Locked-up lending is a prime reason why the U.S. is suffering through the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. All the fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises have badly hurt the economy, which is almost certainly in recession, analysts say.

FDIC chief Sheila Bair continues to be the loan voice - I mean lone voice - advocating that some of the crumbs of the Bailout Cake be scattered in the direction of distressed borrowers who are, or will soon be, facing foreclosure.

In a break with the administration stance, Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., who also will testify Tuesday, recently proposed using $24 billion of the bailout money to help some American households avoid foreclosure. So far, the Treasury Department has pledged $250 billion for banks and has agreed to devote $40 billion to troubled insurer American International Group(AIG Quote - Cramer on AIG - Stock Picks) — its first slice of funds going to a company other than a bank. That leaves just $60 billion available from Congress’ first bailout installment of $350 billion.

As much as I appreciate that there is at least one person in the Federal Government’s ivory tower who has some sense of the pain and heartache that the American Homeowner is facing, even if her advocacy basically ends with the gavel and the conclusion of the hearings.

The hearings may address a lot of things today, but the most important thing they will not address is who is responsible for letting us get into this terrible position in the first place? Are we and the now completely vegetative national press, really expected to believe that no one saw this entire catastrophe heading our way, when a simple Google search will produce hundreds of documents that show that version of the truth is ridiculously false?

In the article Liars, and the Lying Lies They Are Telling You, I featured testimony by Karen Shaw Petrou and others who were sounding the alarm repeatedly, exposing the vulnerabilities to the system posed by the nearly industry-wide use of risk-abatement models that only work in a market that never contracts.

That was a fatal strategy on the part of the financial industry. The notion that Federal Regulatory agencies were not aware of the risks is patently false. From 2002:

“The next panelist, Karen Shaw Petrou, Managing Partner of Federal Financial Analytics, had a considerably different take on the appropriateness of the Basel initiative. Ms. Petrou said that she has significant concern with Basel II, not because the individual pieces of it are necessarily wrong but because “nobody understands how it all works together.”

Ms. Petroustressed that reliance on models on which the Basel rules are based must be evaluated with tremendous caution and a careful look at the bottom line. She also highlighted problems with the operational risk rule. Reputation risk is not included in the Basel definition of operational risk for purposes of determining a capital requirement. As another weakness of the Basel II proposal, Ms. Petrou stressed the difficulty with relying on models.

She suggested that the Basel Committee move forward only with the provisions of the rule on which there is widespread agreement and considerable evidence of immediate need.”

In the article, I half-jokingly asked if any readers happened to know where Karen Shaw Petrou was today, and wheter or not she was available to take either Paulson’s or Bernake’s jobs. Well, a friend from OpenSalon.com - Tom Cordle - was curious enough to follow through, and what he found is gold: More proof that the Federal Regulatory Agencies charged with protecting the economy, the nation, and the American taxpayer from the reckless profiteering that is the nature of capitalism were at best asleep on the job - at worst they were completely complicit in the manufacturing of this crisis.

The long and short of it is - WE ARE BEING LIED TO REPEATEDLY, AND THE PROOF IS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE - CONGRESS, THE PRESS, AND ALL OF US…

Trillions of dollars of our tax money to bailout foreign investors, and nothing for distressed homeowners but failed programs and broken promises. The bailout money is now being directed to the Credit Card companies and foreign investors, and the icing is that they want us to believe that they never imagined this could happen.

That is a bald-faced lie. The following is subsequent Congressional testimony from Karen Shaw Petrou, this time the pudding is from 2006:

Testimony Of Karen Shaw Petrou

Managing Partner

Federal Financial Analytics, Inc.

Before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit

Committee on Financial Services

U.S. House of Representatives

September 14, 2006

This panel has led the way in recognizing the critical importance of the Basel risk-based capital rules, starting the policy debate in early 2002 with the first Congressional hearings on the rules long before many in the industry realized their critical importance. I was honored to testify then to offer views on the rules at that early stage and am grateful again now to outline ways to modernize the regulatory-capital requirements governing U.S. financial-services firms.

Sad to say, much of what I will say today is what I said in 2002 and at several later hearings on the proposal in the House and Senate. For example, in 2002, I urged the regulators carefully to consider the competitive implications of their rules. The House Financial Services Committee has pressed hard on this point and the agencies are now paying heed to it, but I fear that many aspects of the most recent proposal still do not address ongoing problems raised by the unique nature of the U.S. industry. It is different in many key respects from other national financial-services regimes, and U.S. rules must thus be carefully tailored to reflect U.S. reality.

There is, though, one key difference between 2002 and now: the Basel risk-based capital rules - for better or worse - are final everywhere else but here. Thus, we no longer have the luxury of pushing for a better international Accord. That is now final, and banks around the world will start to operate under it in January of 2007. This means not only that internationally-active U.S. banks will operate under anachronistic capital rules that place them at a disadvantage and that put the banking system at risk - that would be bad enough. However, it also means that foreign firms may have an undue capital advantage with which to enter the U.S. and acquire banks and other financial-services firms. As I said before this panel in May of 2005, M&A by global firms here is fine if it’s a fair fight. It isn’t fine, though, if our domestic institutions are gobbled up by foreign competitors able to engage in “regulatory arbitrage” solely because we can’t make up our minds on our capital standards.

What are the key U.S. financial-system realities that must be kept carefully in mind as new capital rules are finalized? Put very simply, they are:

• We are facing emerging financial risks, most notably in housing and mortgage markets. We can debate all day long if the housing “bubble” will burst or fizzle, but we know for sure that U.S. consumers are highly leveraged and are making use in unparalleled fashion of high-risk mortgage products. The current Basel I rules applicable to all U.S. institutions woefully under-capitalize high-risk assets, creating a regulatory incentive for banks to hold them. Getting the risk right in risk-based capital is not just an issue for model builders. It’s a critical challenge to protect the FDIC and the economy more generally.
• In the U.S. bank regulatory capital rules cover only insured depositories and a subset of parent holding companies. We have a wide range of charter options, the consolidated supervised entity (CSE) importantly among them, that permit astute companies to pick and choose among the charters. Outside the U.S., almost all firms fall under the Basel rules, eliminating much of the competitiveness concerns critical in the U.S. The Basel rules as now finalized may be good, bad or indifferent, but they will apply with few distinctions outside the U.S., ensuring the proverbial “level playing field.” We will have a most uneven one - with dangerous systemic-risk ramifications - if the final U.S. bank capital rules do not reflect our charter and supervisory diversity. The proposed operational risk capital standard is particularly problematic in our competitive and legal reality.
• We have a unique capital requirement, the “leverage” standard proposed now to continue under the Basel IA and II regimes. Advocates of leverage argue that it will counteract possibly risky drops in regulatory capital. However, the leverage standard, while providing false comfort, exacerbates the charter disparities noted above because it applies only to some financial-services players, not to all of them. It is, further, no panacea for the problems in Basel. This panel will well remember the thousands of banks and S&Ls that failed in the 1980s and early 1990s even as the leverage standard applied to each and every one of them.
• We have thousands of banks, savings associations and credit unions - not just the four or five big players that dominate most other markets. Initial plans simply to ignore all but the biggest U.S. banks in the Basel rules have rightly been shelved, but the current proposal still has unnecessary restraints on what size institution may choose which capital regime. Each insured depository and, when applicable, holding company should choose the rules it thinks are right for it, not have that choice defined by its regulators. Supervisors have full powers - actually expanded under the Basel proposals - to intervene and add more capital if they think an institution’s choice is risky.

With these thoughts in mind, I offer and urge the following recommendations related to the Basel rules in the U.S.:

• First, we need to get our rules in place as fast as possible. If we can’t make up our minds on the more complex issues, leave them aside and finalize at least the simpler, “standardized” sections of the rules (revised for U.S. mortgage and other issues as necessary) and the Basel IA requirements. As noted, the current Basel I rules encourage risk-taking because there is no regulatory capital penalty for it. A simple rewrite that better equates risk-based capital to risk is urgently needed, and debate over the fine points of these highly-complex rules should not deter action on their key points on which there is, in fact, broad general agreement.
• Second, we should not cling to the leverage standard in hopes that it will protect us from “undue” capital drops. I very much doubt that risk-based capital under Basel II would drop here in anywhere near the amounts suggested by the fourth quantitative impact study, which was based on top-of-the-cycle numbers and back-of-the-envelope estimates. Putting banks and their holding companies through all of the hoops and all the added expense of the Basel rules and then slapping the leverage standard atop them undermines the entire point and purpose of the Basel standards and - importantly - is far from the guarantee of safety and soundness hoped by those now pushing for retaining the leverage standard. It should be discarded - especially for holding companies - and regulators should rely on their own powers and market discipline to press banks that might consider unwise capital reductions to think again.
• Third, the U.S. rules should not include an operational risk-based capital (ORBC) standard. The Basel IA proposal rightly does not include this and it should similarly be omitted from the Basel II rules. While this will put the U.S. Basel II rules at still more variance with the international Accord, it is necessary because of the lack of any agreed-upon methodology or measurement systems for operational risk. Worse still, a focus on ORBC will distract both banks and supervisors from urgently-needed disaster preparedness and contingency planning - capital is no substitute for back-up systems and advance planning as was made all too clear after September 11 and Hurricane Katrina.
• Finally, we must make up our mind and move forward. All of the benchmarks, caveats, limits and questions in the Basel II rules create wholesale uncertainty about what capital rules will apply when to whom. As noted, U.S. banks operate in the real world of aggressive competitors at home and abroad. We have proposed imposing not only new risk-based capital standards, but also new powers for regulators to buttress these - Pillar 2 - and new disclosure standards - Pillar 3 - to enhance market discipline. Far too little attention has been paid in the current debate to these critical elements of the overall Basel framework - indeed, they are almost unmentioned in the current notice of proposed rulemaking. Rightly structured, however, these two additional pillars will give U.S. regulators all the tools they need to ensure that capital is right for each bank under their purview without forcing institutions into the one-size-fits-all leverage standard, benchmarks, and other constraints on Basel now under consideration.

In conclusion, Basel critics might wish none of this had started and the U.S. could just get back to Basel I as is. This is understandable given all the flaws in the initial proposal and all the problems to which regulators turned a deaf ear for so long. However, it is critical to remember that Basel I as is rewards risk-taking and the leverage standard as is will do nothing to constrain this. It is also vital to remember that major competitors at home and abroad are now or will soon come under a more risk-sensitive capital regime with no leverage standard. Each and every one of these firms is a major force to be reckoned with in the U.S. whether or not it chooses to become a bank under the Federal Reserve’s domain or headquarter itself here.

Thus, Basel II is here like it or not. Charters will be selected and deals done based on it, like it or not. The longer U.S. banks are kept under Basel wraps, the fewer of them there will be under our traditional regulatory framework. The longer Basel I is in place, the riskier our banking system will be - leverage standards now have no meaningful impact on risk other than to encourage taking it. Unless Congress is prepared to rewrite our rules and force all banks - big and small - and all competitors under the same capital regime - a major challenge that would keep Congresses busy for years to come - U.S. banks cannot be the last ones allowed to come under modern, risk-sensitive regulatory capital standards.

This article has been reposted from Your Mortgage or Your Life. The full post can also be viewed on yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com.

Bernanke Pushing For Another Stimulus Package

In an effort to stem the financial crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is encouraging Congress to pass another stimulus package when they meet next month. To date, President Bush has said he feels as if passing another stimulus bill would be premature, considering we haven’t given the current stimulus measures time to be fully integrated into the economy, but Democrats hope that Bernanke’s blessing will be enough to change his mind. There are several proposals for a new stimulus package on the table right now, but Democrats would like to see this one include funds to address infrastructure and aid states, according to the Associated Press.

If a new stimulus package is passed, it will probably end up being as much as--or even more--than the previous $168 billion stimulus package passed back in February. In addition to the infrastructure and state aid, there could be another tax rebate included, according to the AP. It makes total sense, too, because if we are going to take bad debts off the books for these financial institutions, then why shouldn’t the government give taxpayers money to pay off their debts? Our nation’s infrastructure is badly deteriorating in many areas, so there is a definite need for something to be done; the infrastructure proposal is a good one, assuming that the projects selected are carefully reviewed. In addition to completing badly needed repairs or upgrades, infrastructure work would also create jobs.

But at what point are we going to say enough is enough? How many bailouts or stimulus packages do we have to pass before the economy is going to turn around? Will the economy even react to any of this? These are all tough questions, ones for which the government doesn’t have answers. At this point, they are determined to do whatever it takes to fix the economy and are content to use a trial and error methodology. I don’t know about you, but I would prefer that the government be a little more conservative with my tax dollars than they have been.

We have already committed around a trillion dollars in financial stimulus aid and so far nothing has worked; at some point we need to cut our losses. I think part of the problem is that since, it is an election year, everyone is trying hard not to lose their jobs--instead of thinking, "What is best over the long term?" they are thinking, "What is going to get results over the next two months?" This is obviously not the mindset we want our leaders to have. I sure hope Bush stands up to this push for another stimulus package and instead lets the next administration evaluate its merits. Hopefully by then our leaders will be thinking straight and have our true interests at heart.

Is Another Economic Stimulus Package Imminent?

Now that the effects of the first economic stimulus package are wearing off and consumer spending is dropping like an anvil, taking America’s economic prospects with it, how long will it be before we see the next brilliant economic stimulus package? The government seems intent on avoiding a recession at all costs, so it seems almost inevitable that a second stimulus package will be unleashed, especially if Obama takes office.

Democrats in House are pushing for more economic aid to be sent out, but in this version they want to see money sent to local governments along with infrastructure improvements and assistance to certain families and workers in need, according to the Economist. Their proposal totals around $50 billion. So far President Bush seems intent to avoid another stimulus package, but who knows if he will change his mind or not. In all likelihood, though, nothing would happen until early next year, under the new President’s leadership. Since Obama has been pushing for a second stimulus package, it seems that if he is elected we can pretty much expect to see one next year, unless the economy makes a miraculous recovery in the second half of 2008 (not likely). McCain, on the other hand, seems opposed to one for the most part, but with Democrats expected to rule in both chambers, according to the Economist, he might be easily swayed if elected.

If I had to guess, I would say chances are more likely than not that we will see another stimulus package. The question that always comes up in my mind though is, “Who’s going to pay for it?” It seems rather silly to tax people in order to give them money back via an economic stimulus, which means we are going to rack up some more IOUs. What’s another $50 billion when you are already $9.9 trillion in the hole, right?

Will We See Another Economic Stimulus Package?

After the latest round of unemployment figures, there is renewed buzz for another economic stimulus package. At this point it is just talk, but depending on how the first economic stimulus package pans out, and whether the price of oil comes down, we may see the talk turn to action sooner rather than later.

President Bush has expressed interest in more economic stimuli, but he wants to wait until we can see how the first round performs first. In addition, Bush has his hands full at the moment trying to get his tax cuts to become permanent, according to CNN. A couple of the plans being proposed in the Senate, though, are increasing unemployment benefits and a $300 billion FHA loan boost, according to CNN.

Those of you who are frequent readers of my blog probably know that I wasn’t a big fan of the first economic stimulus plan, and I’m certainly not in favor of another one. Without getting into a full on tirade about how irresponsible our government is, we are more than $9 trillion in debt, and we should not be going further in debt in order to “attempt” to artificially rouse our economy. Contrary to popular belief, we can’t keep borrowing or printing money indefinitely without recourse. We are walking on thin ice right now, and who knows when it is going to break--but the more weight we add, the higher the chance goes.

Ultimately, I expect we will see some sort of economic stimulus because I seriously doubt the first one is going to have the effect that Bush is hoping for. It was a poorly devised plan to begin with, and things are only getting worse for American consumers. When it gets a little closer to election time (assuming the economy doesn't miraculously get better) you can bet that Bush is going to put his best foot forward for the American public in order to attempt to gain support for the Republican presidential candidate: John McCain. He will propose some miracle plan--that is completely full of hot air--which he will claim will fix everything, and then dare the Democrats to shoot it down. As long as Bush does it right and positions it so that the American public agrees with it, then if the Democrats don’t vote it through they will look like the bad guys and then Obama will take the hit. By the time the public finds out that the net effect of this plan leaves us worse than where we started, it will be too late.

I don’t want to be pessimistic, but I have a hard time not being so when talking about our government right now. I hope that the government thinks twice about another stimulus plan, and actually takes into account our budgetary deficiencies, but when has that ever stopped them before? If you are wondering where I am, I’m heading out to get a wet suit, because the water under the ice looks awfully cold.

Solving The Housing Crisis: A Modest Proposal

Disclaimer: This post is a departure from our usual material, in which we discuss “facts” and “figures” and all that nonsense. Today we’re sticking with black-hearted pessimism, which generally makes whatever one says more accurate than “facts” and “figures” ever could.

The Case-Shiller indices showed a decrease in home prices greater than 2 percent for the fifth consecutive month—14 percent since this time last year. On the upside—in terms of percentages—if it keeps this pace one can view the drop in prices as logarithmic: never quite reaching zero, but still abysmally bad. On the downside...well, that is the downside.

But on the down-downside—to coin a phrase, on the abyssal-side—tax and insurance costs are rising, offsetting further any deceleration in our decline. To anyone who purchased a home in the last six months: Pray for rain. You may soon need do without indoor plumbing.

But all is not lost. In this land of opportunity and innovation and class rule there is always a modest proposal to be found to address our woes, and I have stumbled upon one: Teepees!

Yes, teepees. I would say ‘yurts’, which are more stable, but this is America, former home of the teepee, and I’m pretty sure that we’re at war with the Mongols (or soon will be, given our record). But where, you must be asking, shall we find sufficient hides to create enough teepees for all the displaced homeowners who cannot even afford rent as those prices, too, have risen? We have wiped out most of the larger animals on this continent, and plastic tarps (being petroleum products) will soon be out of most people’s price range. Whence shall the raw materials come?

It is common knowledge that we are the most obese nation on the planet, though this will not be the case for much longer as we all begin to starve. As inflation and unemployment rise and wages stagnate, we shall all soon be The Biggest Losers. But as you also know, the excess skin from our deflated bodies will remain on our newly chic and slender frames. Tanned by days and nights exposed to the elements, this excess skin will make ideal hides for the creation of teepees.

Am I suggesting that we slay and eat the fat? No, no, a thousand times no! We’re at least six months away from that sort of desperation. But do consider how our multi-billion dollar cosmetic surgery industry—which is also on the slide thanks to a 16-year low in consumer confidence—might benefit from a boom of tummy tucks, and consider how Green and eco-friendly it would be to recycle our own skin to create a roof over our heads. To coin another phrase: “Home is where the abdominoplasty is.”

So on the abyssal-side, we can expect home prices to fall, inflation to rise, waistlines to shrink and national debt to grow (but for the banks, who at least are being paid back in depreciated dollars). My advice: Keep your economic stimulus wampum close to your chest and sharpen your scalpels. My crystal ball says the Case-Shiller index next month will show more of the same—with an added return to new-home prices decline (up this month!). See you at the pow-wow.

Tax Rebate Checks Are In The Mail: Well Maybe…

It appears that the first set of tax rebate checks are in the mail and should be received by people shortly. So if you are wondering when to expect your tax rebate check--and how much it will be for--check out the resources below.

To find out how much you will be receiving, the IRS has put together a handy tax rebate check calculator that can help make this determination: http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/

To figure out when you will be receiving your tax rebate check, see the payment schedule on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=180250,00.html

Now that you’ve figured out how much you’ll be getting and when it will be arriving, the next step is to figure out what to do with it. There are many ideas floating around out there for how to spend your new-found wealth, some of them better than others. It is for this reason that NuWire has decided to put together their own list of the top ways to spend--or better yet, invest--your tax rebate checks. Look for the article later this week.

Economic Recovery Won’t Come Until 2009 Say 90 Percent Of CFOs

According to a survey done by Duke University and CFO Magazine, nearly 90 percent of the chief financial officers (CFOs) surveyed don’t foresee economic recovery coming until 2009. Why is this important? CFOs are one of the key decision makers in companies, and if they see economic woes continuing through 2008, then their companies probably won’t make many expansionary investments this year. One wild card in this is the business investment tax breaks given as part of the Bush administration's economic stimulus package.

Since business investments are a major part of our economy, it is not a positive sign that most of the businesses out there are hesitant to make them at present. If businesses fail to make investments in equipment and other expansionary measures, the road to economic recovery will become much more difficult. Their fear will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can’t say that I blame them, though. I too am pessimistic on this point, and personally I think that a 2009 recovery is rather optimistic.

How the Bush economic stimulus package tax breaks will affect business investment this year remains to be seen, but I feel that it won’t have the impact that the administration is hoping it will. If the economy shows improvement later in the year, then one can bet that more businesses will take advantage of the tax benefits before they expire, but, at this point, it appears that most businesses think expansionary investments are too risky.

Investors out there should take note of what these CFOs are saying. If they believe that economic recovery won’t come until 2009, then their approach will likely make it a self-fulfilling prophecy and recovery won’t come until at least then. Unless one finds a tremendous investment opportunity, one is better off playing it safe, or focusing investment monies on investments that better perform during economic slumps.

President Bush Says “No Recession,” So We All Can Relax Now...

During a news conference yesterday, President Bush said that the country was not recession bound. It appears that everything is going to be okay, and we all can sleep better at night without fear of the scary recession monster.

I don’t know about you, but I’m just not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling. If you believe President Bush, and you feel good about the country’s economic future, then more power to you. I just don’t think I’m ready to drink that Kool-Aid quite yet.

I look at the economy and I still see major issues. Mr. Bush says that the economic stimulus package will be more than enough to fix what ails us, but I look at it and think “what a waste of tax payer money.” Of that $168 billion how much will actually end up back in the economy? 1/2? 1/3 or less? No one can know for certain, but I have a feeling it will not be nearly as much as the Bush clan is projecting.

What I do know is that inflation is running rampant, and it appears that the Fed isn’t going to do anything to slow it down for awhile. Even if Bush and Bernanke pull out all the stops to ward off recession, with what will we ultimately be left? Recession is a natural thing, it happens every once in awhile, and whether or not we want to, we are going to have to face it eventually. If we keep delaying it and delaying it, once it eventually comes it will only come harder. It would be great if we could avoid recession forever, but that only happens in Fantasy Land, and it is high time for President Bush and Bernanke to come back to reality. I know Bush is just trying to delay the recession until after the elections, but come on, man... your legacy is already ruined, and you’re only making it worse.

Meanwhile, investment-wise it pretty much comes down to this: If you believe that Bush and Bernanke have this thing under control, then you want to buy up dollar assets. If you don’t believe Bush and Bernanke are going to pull off a miracle, and are just setting us up for a harder fall, then you want to get out of the dollar.